Takuanyi v. City of South St. Paul Police Department

Background

Patrick Takuanyi brought federal civil-rights claims against the City of South St. Paul Police Department based on citations, vehicle towing, code-enforcement activity, and a racial epithet allegedly written on one citation. He also brought a negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. The parties later filed a signed stipulation dismissing all claims with prejudice, and the court dismissed the case on June 30, 2021.

Takuanyi then asked the court to vacate the dismissal and reopen the case. He asserted that his attorney, David Wilson, had agreed to a $1,000 settlement without his permission and had pressured him to accept it. Wilson stated that Takuanyi had accepted the settlement and indicated that he would sign the agreement. The court noted that the evidence was conflicting but that Takuanyi offered no evidence supporting his account beyond his own allegations.

Motion to Reopen

The court treated Takuanyi’s filing as a request for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule allows a court to undo a final order in limited circumstances, including mistake, surprise, fraud by an opposing party, or another reason that justifies relief. The party seeking relief must make an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.

The court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1), which covers mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. It explained that the rule generally does not provide relief merely because an attorney was incompetent or careless. It also concluded that Wilson’s signed agreement to dismiss the case with prejudice was not a mistake or surprise because Wilson intended to sign it and understood its consequences. The court made no findings about whether Wilson actually acted improperly.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(3), which addresses fraud or misconduct by an opposing party. Even assuming Wilson lacked authority to settle, the court found that this would not establish misconduct by the opposing party, because the allegations showed only that the opposing lawyer relied on communications from Wilson.

Finally, the court denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a provision covering other reasons that justify relief. The court found that Takuanyi’s unsupported allegations did not establish exceptional circumstances. It also stated that any claim against Wilson for improper conduct would be separate from this case, noting that a malpractice action could be available if Takuanyi had been wronged.

Application to Proceed Without Paying Appeal Fees

Takuanyi also applied to proceed without paying fees and costs for his appeal. The court found that the application omitted significant information and appeared possibly incorrect. It reported that Takuanyi listed Social Security benefits as current income, but also reported owning two real-estate properties worth more than $500,000 collectively and being owed $150,000 by a third party. The court concluded that he had significant assets and had not shown in sufficient detail that he could not pay or provide security for the appeal fees.

The court denied the application. It stated that it would reconsider the matter if Takuanyi submitted a new application that supplied the missing information and addressed the other problems identified in the opinion.

Disposition

The court ordered that Takuanyi’s motion to reopen, Docket No. 38, was DENIED. It separately ordered that his application to proceed without paying appeal fees, Docket No. 41, was DENIED. The previously entered dismissal with prejudice remained in place.