Jones v. Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Court
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-00125
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Jones v. Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Court, Judge Provinzino denied Jones’s request to undo the dismissal and denied his fee-waiver request as moot.
Mark Rozell Jones’s judgment remained in place. His request to undo the judgment was denied, and his application to proceed on appeal without paying court fees was denied as moot. The defendants were not granted any new relief in this order.
What happened
In Jones v. Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Court, the court had earlier dismissed Mark Rozell Jones’s complaint, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed that decision.
Jones asked the court to undo the judgment, largely repeating arguments from his complaint. He also argued that the dismissal law applied only to prisoners, but the court rejected that argument.
Judge Provinzino denied Jones’s request for relief because he showed no exceptional circumstances. The judge also denied Jones’s request to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees as moot because the appeal had already been resolved.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Court · No. 0:25-cv-00125
- Laura M. Provinzino
- July 10, 2025
Background
On March 20, 2025, the court dismissed Jones’s complaint against the defendants. Jones appealed, and on May 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
Jones then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits a court to provide relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances, such as mistake, excusable neglect, fraud, or a void judgment. The rule also permits relief for another reason that justifies it, but the court explained that such relief is extraordinary and requires exceptional circumstances.
The Court’s Analysis
The court found that most of Jones’s motion repeated the allegations and arguments from his original complaint. Because the court had already considered those arguments and the Eighth Circuit had affirmed the dismissal, the court concluded that Jones was improperly trying to reargue the dismissal’s merits.
Jones also argued that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which permits dismissal of certain cases filed without paying court fees, applies only to prisoners. The court rejected that argument, relying on Eighth Circuit precedent holding that the provision applies to all people proceeding without paying court fees, not only prisoners, and permits dismissal before the defendants are served.
Ruling
The court held that Jones had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b). It therefore denied Jones’s Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order.
The court separately denied as moot Jones’s application to proceed on appeal without paying court fees because the Eighth Circuit had already resolved his appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.