Aery v. Unknown Beltrami County Deputies

Background

On March 22, 2022, the court dismissed James Paul Aery’s action without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court entered judgment, closed the case, and later received Aery’s motion for leave to amend his complaint and a proposed amended complaint.

The proposed pleading concerned the same subject matter as the original complaint: the seizure and forfeiture of Aery’s cash. It proposed allegations against several identified defendants, including Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison; the City of Bemidji police officer who arrested Aery for driving under the influence and possession of methamphetamine and seized his vehicle and approximately $9,100 in cash; Beltrami County, where Aery litigated the property forfeiture in Conciliation Court; and the State of Minnesota.

Court’s Analysis

Because Aery filed the motion after judgment had been entered, the court treated the request as subject to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Before a complaint can be amended under Rule 15(a)(2), the prior judgment must first be set aside under Rule 59 or Rule 60.

Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment to correct a clear legal error. The court held that Aery had not shown such an error. Instead, he raised arguments and presented allegations that could have been offered before judgment was entered.

Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and for other reasons justifying relief. The court described this as extraordinary relief requiring exceptional circumstances. It found nothing in Aery’s motion demonstrating circumstances that would justify vacating the judgment.

Disposition

The court DENIED Aery’s post-judgment motion to amend. Because the case was closed, the court cautioned that it was likely to summarily deny similar future requests.