Ward v. Beltz
Ward v. Beltz
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Earl Lionell Ward, Case No. 21-cv-0930 (WMW/DTS) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING v. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Tracy S. Beltz, Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Earl Lionell Ward’s October 3, 2022 motion to reconsider this Court’s August 31, 2022 Order, (Dkt. 24), which declined to reopen this matter pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Local Rule 7.1(j) prohibits filing a motion to reconsider without leave of court. A party may receive permission to file a motion to reconsider only by showing “compelling circumstances.” LR 7.1(j). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). A motion to reconsider cannot be employed to repeat arguments previously made, introduce evidence or arguments that could have been made earlier or tender new legal theories for the first time. See id. Ward has not sought permission to file the pending motion to reconsider. But even liberally construing Ward’s pro se filing as a request to file a motion for reconsideration, see Olsen as Tr. for Xurex, Inc. v. Di Mase, 24 F.4th 1197, 1202 (8th Cir. 2022), the Court denies Ward’s request. Ward’s filing does not demonstrate the “compelling circumstances” necessary to seek reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(j).
Accordingly, the Court denies Ward’s motion.
ORDER Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Earl Lionell Ward’s motion for reconsideration, (Dkt. 24), is DENIED.
Dated: October 6, 2022 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Earl Lionell Ward, Case No. 21-cv-0930 (WMW/DTS) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING v. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Tracy S. Beltz, Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Earl Lionell Ward’s October 3, 2022 motion to reconsider this Court’s August 31, 2022 Order, (Dkt. 24), which declined to reopen this matter pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Local Rule 7.1(j) prohibits filing a motion to reconsider without leave of court. A party may receive permission to file a motion to reconsider only by showing “compelling circumstances.” LR 7.1(j). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). A motion to reconsider cannot be employed to repeat arguments previously made, introduce evidence or arguments that could have been made earlier or tender new legal theories for the first time. See id. Ward has not sought permission to file the pending motion to reconsider. But even liberally construing Ward’s pro se filing as a request to file a motion for reconsideration, see Olsen as Tr. for Xurex, Inc. v. Di Mase, 24 F.4th 1197, 1202 (8th Cir. 2022), the Court denies Ward’s request. Ward’s filing does not demonstrate the “compelling circumstances” necessary to seek reconsideration under Local Rule 7.1(j).
Accordingly, the Court denies Ward’s motion.
ORDER Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Earl Lionell Ward’s motion for reconsideration, (Dkt. 24), is DENIED.
Dated: October 6, 2022 s/Wilhelmina M. Wright Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.