Berman v. Segal

Background

John L. Berman, representing himself, filed a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(6) seeking relief from the court’s earlier dismissal of his case. On July 16, 2020, the court had adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case as frivolous; judgment was entered the same day.

The earlier case challenged the constitutionality of Minnesota’s filing-fee waiver statute and how that statute was applied to a state-court appeal. The court had previously concluded that Berman’s state-court litigation did not qualify for a waiver of civil filing fees, that he had no constitutional right to bring a frivolous action, that his challenge to Minnesota’s fee-waiver system was groundless, and that his challenge to the state trial court’s finding that his appeal was frivolous belonged in the state appellate courts rather than the federal district court.

Legal standards

The court explained that a motion to reconsider requires compelling circumstances and is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues. Rule 59(e) provides a limited way to correct a clear legal or factual error or address newly discovered evidence; it cannot be used for new evidence, new legal theories, or arguments that could have been raised before judgment. Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from a final judgment for another reason that justifies relief, but only in extraordinary circumstances supported by an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.

Ruling

The court determined that Berman was attempting to relitigate earlier arguments or raise arguments that could have been raised before judgment. It found no manifest legal error and no newly discovered evidence or law that justified reversing the earlier order. The court concluded that Berman had not shown extraordinary circumstances and denied his Motion for Relief Under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)(6).