Fuller v. Hafoka

Background

On August 27, 2020, Fontell Demann Fuller filed a memorandum asking the court to reconsider an August 19 order. That earlier order had denied his request for a hearing concerning his allegation that the defendants withheld or altered video evidence related to a security camera in unit 500D and a use-of-force incident involving Fuller.

The defendants responded that they had turned over all relevant video footage in their possession, including footage of the use-of-force incident. They said the unit 500D camera was old equipment used only for real-time surveillance. Fuller did not provide evidence contradicting that explanation.

Court’s Analysis

Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), the court stated that permission to file a reconsideration motion requires compelling circumstances, such as a clear legal or factual error or newly discovered evidence. A reconsideration request cannot be used simply to reargue the underlying motion.

Fuller cited Minnesota statutes and Ramsey County policies to argue that the unit 500D camera should have recorded the incident. The court concluded that whether the camera should have been recording did not address Fuller’s allegation that the defendants withheld or altered video footage. The court also found that Fuller was seeking to relitigate issues that had already been considered and had not shown compelling circumstances.

Disposition

The court denied Fuller’s memorandum requesting permission to file a dispositive motion for a hearing concerning the alleged withholding or alteration of evidence and requesting reconsideration based on additional documents. Judge Becky R. Thorson signed the order as a United States magistrate judge.