Henry v. Servion

Background

Plaintiff Sean Bruce Henry filed an amended complaint against a long list of defendants including technology companies (Microsoft, GitHub, Google, Apple, Meta/Facebook, WhatsApp, X.com/Twitter), financial institutions (Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, PayPal, Apple Pay, Google Pay, Microsoft Wallet App), a law firm (Felhaber Larson) and one of its attorneys (Lauren M. Weber), his former employer or a related entity (Servion, Inc.), a Minnesota state court (Minnesota 2nd District Ramsey County Civil Court), a judge (Judge Sara R. Grewing), an individual named Aaron Hall, and one million unnamed defendants.

Henry had asked to proceed in forma pauperis — that is, without prepaying the court's filing fees on grounds of financial hardship. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when a party proceeds in this way, the court is required to screen the complaint before it is served and must dismiss it if, among other reasons, it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On October 21, 2025, the court dismissed Henry's amended complaint without prejudice following that preservice review. ECF No. 12.

The Motions at Issue

Two days later, Henry filed motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). ECF No. 13. These are post-judgment motions:

- Rule 59(e) allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. Its purpose is narrow: to correct clear or obvious errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used to introduce new legal theories, new arguments that could have been raised before judgment, or to simply repeat arguments the court already rejected.

- Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for specific reasons, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or any other reason that justifies relief. However, like Rule 59(e), it is not a vehicle to simply reargue the merits.

Henry did not identify which subsection of Rule 60(b) he was invoking.

Henry's Arguments and the Court's Responses

Argument 1: Dismissal Before Service

Henry argued that dismissal was improper because the complaint had not yet been served on the defendants. The court rejected this, explaining that the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), expressly authorizes dismissal before service and applies to all litigants proceeding without fees — not just prisoners. The court cited Carter v. Schafer, 273 F. App'x 581 (8th Cir. 2008), for this proposition.

Argument 2: Motion to Supplement the Record

Henry claimed the court dismissed the case without ruling on his motion to supplement the record. The court stated this was factually incorrect: it had denied that motion in its October 21 order (ECF No. 12 at 9–10) because Henry had asked the court to review hundreds of exhibits in order to shore up obvious deficiencies in the complaint itself — a practice that courts do not permit at the pleading stage.

Argument 3: Document Alterations

Henry argued that alleged alterations to documents had prevented him from fully presenting his claims. The court noted it had already considered these allegations in its prior order and found them legally deficient. Neither Rule 59(e) nor Rule 60(b) permits a party to simply restate allegations and arguments that the court has already found lacking.

Disposition

The court found no sufficient basis to amend or vacate the judgment under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) and denied Henry's motions. The earlier dismissal without prejudice of the amended complaint remains in place.