Spencer v. United States Bureau of Prisons

Background

The court previously granted the United States Bureau of Prisons’ request for additional time to answer and to establish a consolidated response date for all defendants after service was completed. Antwoyn Terrell Spencer then filed a “Motion to Alter Judgment,” asking the court to change that earlier order. Spencer disagreed with several conclusions in the earlier order and maintained that service had already been completed.

Analysis

Spencer cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which concerns changing a judgment. The court held that Rule 59(e) did not apply because the earlier order was not a judgment. The court considered the motion under Rule 60(a), which permits correction of clerical mistakes or mistakes caused by oversight or omission in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court concluded that Spencer had not identified such an error.

The court also treated the motion, to the extent necessary, as a request for reconsideration. Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, Spencer was required to obtain permission before filing a reconsideration motion. The court stated that, even apart from that failure, Spencer had not shown the “compelling circumstances” required for reconsideration, such as a clear legal or factual error or newly discovered evidence.

Disposition

The court denied Spencer’s motion to alter the September 16, 2020 order. The order did not alter the earlier extension of time or consolidated response date. Katherine Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.