UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Tony Dejuan Jackson,                     No. 22-cv-3074 (KMM/DLM)        

          Plaintiff,                                                     

v.                                          ORDER                        

Paul Schnell, et al.,                                                    

          Defendant.                                                     


    This  matter  is  before  the  Court  on  plaintiff  Tony  Dejuan  Jackson’s  motion 
requesting (1) reconsideration of the Court’s decision granting the Defendants’ motion for 
summary judgment and (2) a preliminary injunction. (ECF 121). On September 19, 2024, 
the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants because there is no genuine dispute 
that Mr. Jackson failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing this action, as 
required by the PLRA. Further, the Court found that Mr. Jackson had failed to point to any 
evidence showing that administrative remedies were unavailable. The Court dismissed 
Mr. Jackson’s claims with prejudice because the time for exhausting the claims asserted in 
this proceeding has long since expired. ECF 115. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on 
September 20, 2024, and Mr. Jackson has since filed a notice of appeal.   
    Mr. Jackson now seeks reconsideration of the summary judgment decision because 
the Minnesota Department of Corrections allegedly adopted a new grievance system that 
was not available to him until August of 2024. He also asserts that in the MCF-Stillwater 
facility where he is incarcerated, other inmates have recently engaged in constant drug use 
that has released large amounts of toxic smoke into the air within the prison, causing 
significant health risks for prisoners and correctional officers. He contends that other 
prisoners are smoking fentanyl and that the smoke lingers due to poor ventilation within 

MCF-Stillwater. Jackson further asserts that the Court should issue a preliminary injunction 
so that he can exhaust his complaints about the current conditions in the prison using the 
recently adopted changes to the grievance system.                         
    None of these recent events shows that before he filed this case in December of 
2022, Mr. Jackson did, in fact, exhaust administrative remedies. Nor do these developments 

have any relevance to Mr. Jackson’s claims that administrative remedies were unavailable 
to him back in 2022. Accordingly, Mr. Jackson has failed to demonstrate the “compelling 
circumstances”  that  would  justify  reconsideration  of  the  Court’s  summary  judgment 
decision. D. Minn. LR 7.1(j); Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 

 (8th 
Cir. 1988) (“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors 

of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”). And because Mr. Jackson’s 
claims have been dismissed and judgment entered favor of the defendants, there is no status 
quo for the Court to preserve until a final decision can be reached on the merits of 
Mr. Jackson’s claims. See Kansas City S. Transp. Co. v. Teamsters Loc. Union #41, 

, 1066–67 (8th Cir. 1997) (“The primary function of a preliminary injunction is 

to preserve the status quo until, upon final hearing, a court may grant full, effective relief.”) 
(quoting Ferry–Morse Seed Co. v. Food Corn, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 1984)). 
Mr. Jackson cannot transform this case, which concerned claims about prison conditions 
in 2022, into a new piece of litigation to assert his claims about the conditions of his 
confinement in the last few months. This is true even though his claims about recent 
fentanyl smoke lingering in the air due to poor ventilation bear some resemblance to the 
allegations in his pleadings in this case, which concern, at least in part, smoke from 

Canadian wildfires causing health problems due to inadequate ventilation. 
    For these reasons,  Mr. Jackson’s  motion  for reconsideration and  a preliminary 
injunction (ECF 121) is DENIED.                                           

Date: October 4, 2024           s/Katherine Menendez                     
                                Katherine Menendez                       
                                United States District Court             

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Tony Dejuan Jackson,                     No. 22-cv-3074 (KMM/DLM)        

          Plaintiff,                                                     

v.                                          ORDER                        

Paul Schnell, et al.,                                                    

          Defendant.                                                     


    This  matter  is  before  the  Court  on  plaintiff  Tony  Dejuan  Jackson’s  motion 
requesting (1) reconsideration of the Court’s decision granting the Defendants’ motion for 
summary judgment and (2) a preliminary injunction. (ECF 121). On September 19, 2024, 
the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants because there is no genuine dispute 
that Mr. Jackson failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing this action, as 
required by the PLRA. Further, the Court found that Mr. Jackson had failed to point to any 
evidence showing that administrative remedies were unavailable. The Court dismissed 
Mr. Jackson’s claims with prejudice because the time for exhausting the claims asserted in 
this proceeding has long since expired. ECF 115. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on 
September 20, 2024, and Mr. Jackson has since filed a notice of appeal.   
    Mr. Jackson now seeks reconsideration of the summary judgment decision because 
the Minnesota Department of Corrections allegedly adopted a new grievance system that 
was not available to him until August of 2024. He also asserts that in the MCF-Stillwater 
facility where he is incarcerated, other inmates have recently engaged in constant drug use 
that has released large amounts of toxic smoke into the air within the prison, causing 
significant health risks for prisoners and correctional officers. He contends that other 
prisoners are smoking fentanyl and that the smoke lingers due to poor ventilation within 

MCF-Stillwater. Jackson further asserts that the Court should issue a preliminary injunction 
so that he can exhaust his complaints about the current conditions in the prison using the 
recently adopted changes to the grievance system.                         
    None of these recent events shows that before he filed this case in December of 
2022, Mr. Jackson did, in fact, exhaust administrative remedies. Nor do these developments 

have any relevance to Mr. Jackson’s claims that administrative remedies were unavailable 
to him back in 2022. Accordingly, Mr. Jackson has failed to demonstrate the “compelling 
circumstances”  that  would  justify  reconsideration  of  the  Court’s  summary  judgment 
decision. D. Minn. LR 7.1(j); Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 

 (8th 
Cir. 1988) (“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors 

of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”). And because Mr. Jackson’s 
claims have been dismissed and judgment entered favor of the defendants, there is no status 
quo for the Court to preserve until a final decision can be reached on the merits of 
Mr. Jackson’s claims. See Kansas City S. Transp. Co. v. Teamsters Loc. Union #41, 

, 1066–67 (8th Cir. 1997) (“The primary function of a preliminary injunction is 

to preserve the status quo until, upon final hearing, a court may grant full, effective relief.”) 
(quoting Ferry–Morse Seed Co. v. Food Corn, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 1984)). 
Mr. Jackson cannot transform this case, which concerned claims about prison conditions 
in 2022, into a new piece of litigation to assert his claims about the conditions of his 
confinement in the last few months. This is true even though his claims about recent 
fentanyl smoke lingering in the air due to poor ventilation bear some resemblance to the 
allegations in his pleadings in this case, which concern, at least in part, smoke from 

Canadian wildfires causing health problems due to inadequate ventilation. 
    For these reasons,  Mr. Jackson’s  motion  for reconsideration and  a preliminary 
injunction (ECF 121) is DENIED.                                           

Date: October 4, 2024           s/Katherine Menendez                     
                                Katherine Menendez                       
                                United States District Court