Avila v. Bellefy

Background

Adolfo Gutierrez Avila, Jr., who was representing himself, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ryan Bellefy, a Minnesota Department of Corrections correctional officer. Avila alleged that, in February 2016, Bellefy knocked him to the ground while responding to an unrelated disturbance, causing a serious and permanent lower-back injury. Avila was serving a sentence for criminal sexual conduct at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault.

Bellefy moved for summary judgment, which is a decision without a trial when the undisputed facts require judgment for one side. He argued that Avila had not completed the prison grievance process before filing suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, and the district court adopted that recommendation over Avila’s objections on February 17, 2023.

Motion to Alter or Amend

Avila moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and deny Bellefy’s summary-judgment motion. He argued that the court had overlooked facts showing that the grievance process was unavailable to him, including his physical injuries, untreated mental illness, and alleged misconduct by Department of Corrections officials. He also argued that a surveillance video of the encounter, which he said had not been produced, would support his position.

Bellefy argued that Avila was repeating arguments previously raised and rejected and had not presented new evidence supporting the extraordinary relief available under Rule 59(e).

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Rule 59(e) is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or considering newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used to introduce arguments that could have been made before judgment or to relitigate issues already decided. To qualify as newly discovered evidence, evidence must have been discovered after the summary-judgment hearing, despite due diligence; must be material rather than merely cumulative or impeaching; and must probably produce a different result.

The court had already rejected Avila’s arguments that a transfer prevented him from using the grievance process and that he could not grieve the incident because he did not learn the full extent of his injuries until later. The court also relied on unrebutted evidence that Avila filed an improper formal grievance on the day of his injury. According to the court, this showed that he was able to participate in the grievance process.

The court further ruled that Avila’s arguments about his physical and mental condition were arguments that could have been raised before judgment. The medical records submitted with the motion appeared to include excerpts already attached to the complaint, and the other documents were dated September 2014, May 2016, and January 2022. Avila did not argue that he lacked those documents when the summary-judgment motion was considered.

The court also ruled that the proposed surveillance video would probably not change the result because the court had already determined that Avila actually grieved his injuries on the day they occurred.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson concluded that Avila had not shown a clear legal or factual error or newly discovered evidence warranting relief under Rule 59(e). The court reaffirmed its conclusion that Avila had not exhausted the administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and ordered that his Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment be DENIED.