Olson v. Hennepin County
- Susan Nelson
- 0:21-cv-02661
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Olson v. Hennepin County, Judge Nelson denied Olson’s reconsideration motion because he showed neither compelling circumstances nor a manifest error or new evidence.
Jeffrey A. Olson’s request for reconsideration was denied, while Hennepin County’s earlier dismissal ruling remained in place.
What happened
In Olson v. Hennepin County, the court considered Jeffrey A. Olson’s request to reconsider an earlier order. That earlier order granted Hennepin County’s motion to dismiss and denied Olson’s request for summary judgment.
The court explained that local rules required Olson to obtain permission before filing a reconsideration motion. Permission required compelling circumstances, such as a clear legal or factual mistake or newly discovered evidence. The court said Olson had not shown those circumstances, and that his proposed amendments would not fix the problems that led to dismissal.
Judge Nelson denied Olson’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion did not change the earlier dismissal order.
The detailed version
- Olson v. Hennepin County · No. 0:21-cv-02661
- Susan Nelson
- Sept. 13, 2022
Background
The court was deciding Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Olson’s Motion for Reconsideration. On June 14, 2022, the court had granted Defendant Hennepin County’s Motion to Dismiss and denied Olson’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 13, 2022, the court denied Olson’s Motion for Rehearing and his request for permission to seek reconsideration.
Applicable standard
The court stated that Local Rule 7.1(j) required a party to obtain permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. The party had to show “compelling circumstances.” The court explained that reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or considering newly discovered evidence.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Olson had not shown the compelling circumstances required for permission. It also found that he had not identified a clear legal or factual error in the June 14 order and had not presented newly discovered evidence. The court further stated that Olson’s proposed amendments would not cure the defects that led to dismissal.
Disposition
Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Olson’s Motion for Reconsideration was DENIED. The opinion did not state that the earlier dismissal was altered or vacated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.