Aery v. Unknown Actors in the Employ of Beltrami County Jail
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:21-cv-02422
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Aery v. Unknown Actors, Magistrate Judge Elkins denied reconsideration permission and an interlocutory appeal.
James Paul Aery’s requests for reconsideration permission and an interlocutory appeal were denied. The order also discussed the stay affecting Todd A. Leonard and MEnD because of MEnD’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
What happened
In Aery v. Unknown Actors in the Employ of Beltrami County Jail, James Paul Aery asked the court to allow more discovery or, alternatively, to certify part of the matter for appeal.
The court treated the filing as a request for permission to seek reconsideration and as a request for an interlocutory appeal. It found no obvious legal or factual error, new evidence, or other compelling circumstance, and no controlling legal question that would justify an immediate appeal.
The court denied both requests. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins also noted that the case was stayed as to Todd A. Leonard and MEnD because of MEnD’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so an appeal concerning other defendants would not speed the case’s overall resolution.
The detailed version
- Aery v. Unknown Actors in the Employ of Beltrami County Jail · No. 0:21-cv-02422
- Patrick Schiltz
- Feb. 7, 2025
Background
James Paul Aery, who represented himself, filed a letter captioned “Notice of Motion & Motion to Reconsider.” He asked the court to order additional discovery that he said would support his contention that the defendants misled the court by claiming that he assaulted them. In the alternative, he asked the court to permit or certify a partial appeal against the County defendants.
Request to Seek Reconsideration
The court interpreted the filing as a request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must show “compelling circumstances” before filing such a motion. The court explained that reconsideration is limited to correcting an obvious legal or factual error or considering newly discovered evidence, and that it is intended for extraordinary circumstances.
The court denied Aery’s request. It found that he had not shown an obvious legal error in the court’s earlier decisions, had not presented newly discovered evidence affecting the court’s analysis, and had not shown the required compelling circumstances.
Interlocutory Appeal
The court also interpreted Aery’s filing as a motion for an interlocutory appeal. It explained that a nonfinal order may be certified for such an appeal when it involves a controlling legal question with substantial disagreement about the answer and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation.
The court found that Aery had not identified a controlling legal question that met those requirements. It stated that the Report and Recommendation adopted by the district court did not present such a question. The court further concluded that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation because the action was stayed as to Todd A. Leonard and MEnD due to MEnD’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. An appeal concerning the dismissal of claims against other defendants would not speed the litigation involving Leonard or MEnD.
Disposition
The court denied Aery’s Request for Motion of Reconsideration and Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. The order was signed by Shannon G. Elkins, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.