Ward v. Beltz
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:21-cv-00930
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Ward v. Beltz, Judge Wright denied Ward’s motion to reconsider an earlier refusal to reopen the case.
Earl Lionell Ward’s request to reconsider the court’s earlier refusal to reopen the matter was denied; Tracy S. Beltz was the named respondent.
What happened
In Ward v. Beltz, Earl Lionell Ward asked the court to reconsider its August 31, 2022 order declining to reopen the matter under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ward had not obtained the court’s permission to file a reconsideration motion. The court treated his self-represented filing as a request for permission but found that it did not show the compelling circumstances required by the court’s local rules.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied Ward’s request for permission and denied his motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Ward v. Beltz · No. 0:21-cv-00930
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Oct. 6, 2022
Background
The court considered Petitioner Earl Lionell Ward’s October 3, 2022 motion asking the court to reconsider its August 31, 2022 order. That earlier order declined to reopen the matter under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a rule that permits certain forms of relief from a judgment or order.
Applicable standard
District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) requires a party to obtain permission before filing a motion for reconsideration. Permission is available only upon a showing of “compelling circumstances.” The court explained that reconsideration has a limited purpose: correcting a clear legal or factual error or addressing newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used to repeat earlier arguments, present evidence or arguments that could have been raised earlier, or introduce new legal theories for the first time.
Ruling
Ward had not sought permission to file the motion. The court liberally treated his self-represented filing as a request for permission to seek reconsideration, but denied that request because Ward had not demonstrated the required compelling circumstances. The court therefore denied Ward’s motion for reconsideration. The order does not describe the underlying claims or the court’s earlier Rule 60(b) analysis.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.