Johnson v. Rardin
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-02248
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Sir Albert L. Johnson v. J. Rardin, Judge Menendez denied reconsideration of the dismissal, finding no extraordinary circumstances or adequate basis for reopening judgment.
Sir Albert L. Johnson and the defendants in the closed case; the order leaves the earlier dismissal and judgment undisturbed.
What happened
In Sir Albert L. Johnson v. J. Rardin, the court had previously dismissed Mr. Johnson’s complaint, entered judgment, and closed the case. Mr. Johnson later filed an appeal and asked the court to reconsider its earlier order.
Mr. Johnson argued that the complaint in the court’s docket was not the version he originally drafted. The court found that he provided no evidence for this claim and did not explain how another version would have avoided the problems the court had identified.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez ruled that Mr. Johnson had not shown the extraordinary circumstances or other required basis for reconsideration or relief from the judgment. The court denied the request for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Rardin · No. 0:26-cv-02248
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 16, 2026
Background
The court had dismissed Sir Albert L. Johnson’s complaint on August 14, 2026. The Clerk entered judgment on August 17, 2026, and the case was closed. On September 8, 2026, Johnson filed a notice of appeal and a motion asking the court to reconsider its dismissal order and its rulings on various motions.
Legal standards
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), a party seeking reconsideration must first obtain permission by showing compelling circumstances. Reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or presenting newly discovered evidence. The court also treated Johnson’s filing as potentially seeking relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule permits relief for specified reasons, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, or opposing-party fraud, and in other situations only when extraordinary circumstances justify reopening the judgment.
Johnson’s argument
Johnson alleged that the complaint in the docket was not the same complaint he originally drafted. He offered no evidence supporting that allegation and did not explain how or why the alleged change occurred. The court observed that the filings in the case had the same handwriting and style as his motion for reconsideration. The court also concluded that, even if Johnson’s allegation were true, he had not shown that another version of the complaint would have avoided the deficiencies identified in the docketed complaint.
Ruling
The court found that Johnson had not made the showing required under either Local Rule 7.1(j) or Rule 60(b). Judge Katherine M. Menendez concluded that the case did not present an extraordinary circumstance warranting reconsideration or relief from the judgment. The order states: “The request for reconsideration is DENIED.”
Effect of the order
This opinion denies Johnson’s request for reconsideration. It does not describe or reconsider the underlying deficiencies in the complaint in detail.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.