Aery v. Pine County Ambulance Service
- Susan Nelson
- 0:22-cv-00009
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Aery v. Pine County Ambulance Service, Judge Nelson denied James Paul Aery permission to seek reconsideration of his previously dismissed claims.
James Paul Aery, whose request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration was denied; the opinion states that his earlier claims had been dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Aery v. Pine County Ambulance Service, James Paul Aery asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Aery proposed changing the defendants to John Doe ambulance personnel and the Pine County Attorney, saying this would fix problems in his original complaint. The court concluded that these proposed changes would not fix the defects previously identified.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson found that Aery had not shown the compelling circumstances required by the court’s local rule and denied his Motion for Permission to File a Motion to Reconsider.
The detailed version
- Aery v. Pine County Ambulance Service · No. 0:22-cv-00009
- Susan Nelson
- July 13, 2022
Background
James Paul Aery, representing himself, asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The court’s local rule requires a party to obtain permission before filing such a motion and allows permission only upon a showing of “compelling circumstances.”
On April 13, 2022, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Leo Brisbois’s recommendation and dismissed Aery’s claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim. About three months later, Aery filed the motion addressed in this order.
Proposed Reconsideration
Aery’s proposed reconsideration motion essentially sought to amend his complaint. He said he wanted to reframe the named defendants as John Doe ambulance personnel and the Pine County Attorney to cure defects in his original pleading.
The court explained that reconsideration motions have a limited purpose: correcting a clear legal or factual error or presenting newly discovered evidence. It found that Aery had not shown the required compelling circumstances. The court also concluded that his proposed amendments would not cure the many defects identified by Magistrate Judge Brisbois and adopted in the April 13 order.
Disposition
Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied Aery’s Motion for Permission to File a Motion to Reconsider. The order did not grant permission to file the proposed reconsideration motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.