Nicolaison v. Brown

Background

Wayne Nicolaison, representing himself, was civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. After a March 10, 2005 altercation with program staff, staff members forced him to the ground. Nicolaison sued Tim Brown, Matt Schroder, Tom Rosburg, and Tim Lokensgard, identifying them as Minnesota Sex Offender Program employees. He claimed that the defendants used excessive force in violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and he also brought state-law claims.

In 2007, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed Nicolaison’s federal claims with prejudice, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims. As to the Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims, the court found that Nicolaison’s own testimony showed, at most, a minor injury. Judgment was entered on March 14, 2007, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment in 2008.

Motion for Relief from Judgment

In May 2019, Nicolaison moved for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), which covers newly discovered evidence, and Rule 60(b)(3), which covers fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. He argued that new evidence showed that the defendants’ assault caused a permanent hip injury and that the defendants had misrepresented the seriousness of that injury.

Timeliness

The court held that the motion was untimely. A motion under Rules 60(b)(2) or 60(b)(3) must be filed no more than one year after the relevant judgment, order, or proceeding. Nicolaison filed his motion more than 12 years after the district court entered judgment and more than 11 years after the appeals court affirmed it. The court also noted that the motion was filed more than three years after Nicolaison’s most recent medical record offered as new evidence. The court therefore held that the motion had to be denied.

Newly Discovered Evidence

The court further held that the motion would be denied even if it had been timely. To obtain relief based on newly discovered evidence, Nicolaison had to show that the evidence was discovered after trial, could not have been found earlier through reasonable diligence, was material rather than merely repetitive or impeachment evidence, and probably would have produced a different result at a new trial.

Nicolaison submitted medical records from 2009 through 2015 showing treatment for right-hip pain, along with one 2010 reference to left-hip pain. He also submitted medical records from March and April 2005 documenting complaints of left-hip pain. The court found that the later records mainly showed treatment for right-hip pain beginning more than four years after the incident, rather than the left-hip injury alleged in the complaint. The records did not show that the court had erred in finding that Nicolaison’s injuries were minor.

Fraud or Misconduct

For relief based on fraud or misconduct, Nicolaison had to prove that the defendants engaged in such conduct and that it prevented him from fully and fairly presenting his case. The required proof was clear and convincing evidence, meaning highly persuasive evidence. Nicolaison alleged that program employees denied him medical attention, denied that an injury occurred, and falsified unspecified medical records. He also argued that the program’s ordering of hip X-rays showed that employees believed they had caused serious damage.

The court found that Nicolaison’s evidence did not indicate fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, much less provide clear and convincing evidence of it.

Disposition

The court denied Nicolaison’s Motion for Relief from Judgment. The order did not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.