Traylor v. Gary
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03758
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Traylor v. Gary, Judge Provinzino denied prisoner Rayco Traylor's motion to reconsider dismissal of his civil-rights retaliation claim, finding no exceptional circumstances.
Incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals who file civil rights lawsuits in federal court and later seek reconsideration of dismissal orders. This ruling illustrates that simply disagreeing with a court's dismissal — without presenting new evidence or arguments — is insufficient to obtain relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
What happened
In Traylor v. Gary, No. 24-cv-3758, Rayco Traylor, a plaintiff who had filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal law allowing people to sue state officials for civil rights violations), had his complaint dismissed on January 23, 2025, for failing to adequately state a legal claim. The court had found, among other things, that Traylor did not sufficiently allege a causal connection between his First Amendment activity and the retaliatory acts he claimed were taken against him. Traylor did not appeal that dismissal.
Months later, on August 20, 2025, Traylor filed a motion labeled as a request for 'rehearing,' asking the court to reconsider its January 2025 dismissal or alternatively to send his case to state court. Because too much time had passed to use one reconsideration procedure (a Rule 59(e) motion, which must be filed within 28 days of judgment), the court treated his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows relief from a final judgment only in exceptional circumstances such as newly discovered evidence, fraud, or court error. Traylor presented no new evidence or arguments — he simply restated the same allegations and insisted the court had been wrong.
Judge Provinzino denied Traylor's motion, explaining that Rule 60(b) is not a tool for simply re-arguing the merits of a dismissed case, and that merely repeating prior claims does not constitute the kind of exceptional circumstances the rule requires. The court also rejected Traylor's request to 'remand' the case to state court, noting that the case never originated in state court and that the court lacked authority to initiate a new action on his behalf in state court. The court noted, however, that the original complaint had been dismissed without prejudice, meaning Traylor remains free to file in state court on his own if he chooses.
The detailed version
- Traylor v. Gary · No. 0:24-cv-03758
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Rayco Traylor filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — a federal statute that allows individuals to sue state or local government officials for violations of their constitutional rights — against a number of named and unnamed defendants, including the Minnesota Department of Corrections and various individuals. On January 23, 2025, the court dismissed Traylor's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a provision that requires courts to screen and dismiss complaints filed by litigants proceeding without paying filing fees when those complaints fail to state a claim. Among the claims dismissed was Traylor's First Amendment retaliation claim; the court found he had not plausibly alleged a causal link between his protected First Amendment activity and the retaliatory acts he claimed were taken against him. Traylor did not appeal the dismissal.
The Motion
On August 20, 2025 — nearly seven months after the dismissal — Traylor filed a motion styled as a request for 'rehearing,' seeking reconsideration of the January 23 order or, alternatively, a remand of his case to state court. His motion consisted of a single paragraph reasserting that the court erred in dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim and that his original allegations were sufficient to establish causation. He presented no new evidence and made no new legal arguments.
Legal Standard
The court identified two available procedural vehicles for post-judgment reconsideration under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), which must be filed within 28 days of the judgment; and (2) a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), which applies to final judgments and allows relief in limited circumstances such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, a judgment that is no longer applicable, or any other reason justifying relief. Because Traylor's motion was filed well outside the 28-day window for a Rule 59(e) motion, the court construed it under Rule 60(b).
The court noted that Rule 60(b) is reserved for 'extraordinary relief' and requires an 'adequate showing of exceptional circumstances,' citing U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 815 (8th Cir. 2003). Critically, the court emphasized that Rule 60(b) 'is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits,' citing Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999).
Analysis and Ruling
The court denied the motion. It found that Traylor's submission did nothing more than repeat the same allegations and arguments already considered and rejected when the complaint was dismissed. The court noted it had carefully reviewed those allegations and found them deficient, and that simply reasserting them does not meet the high standard for Rule 60(b) relief. The court also cited a district court decision, Maddox v. Zera, No. 20-cv-2377 (JRT/HB), 2021 WL 3711054, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2021), for the proposition that reiterating initial claims does not establish the exceptional circumstances needed for Rule 60(b)(6) relief.
The court further rejected Traylor's alternative request to 'remand' his case to state court, explaining that remand is only appropriate when a case was originally removed from state court — which this case was not. The court also stated it lacks authority to initiate a new action in state court on a party's behalf. Importantly, the court noted that the original dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Traylor is free to file a complaint in state court on his own initiative.
Finally, Traylor had asked to be sent 'the entire file.' The court directed the Clerk to print and mail Traylor a copy of his complaint alongside the order, noting that he should already have copies of his other filings and that he had submitted no exhibits that would otherwise need to be returned.
Disposition
Traylor's Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (ECF No. 9) was DENIED.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.