Nelson v. Ellison

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota May 15, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CHAD NICHOLAS NELSON,
Civil No. 23-2122 (JRT/LIB)
Plaintiff,

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota Attorney DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER
General, et al, OR AMEND JUDGMENT

Defendants.

Chad Nicholas Nelson, 6870 147th Avenue Northwest, Ramsey, MN 55303,
pro se Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Chad Nicholas Nelson is on supervised release after serving a 150-month
sentence of imprisonment for second-degree murder. While incarcerated, Nelson filed
the complaint in this action and various motions against the Defendants, seeking to enjoin
them from enforcing a duty to retreat in any Minnesota prosecution involving self-
defense. (Compl. at 1, 4–6, 8–9, July 13, 2023, Docket No. 1.) The Court adopted
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s Report and Recommendation, dismissing the complaint
and denying Nelson’s assorted motions. (Order Adopting R. & R., Nov. 15, 2023, Docket
No. 18.) Nelson subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend the Court’s judgment, a
motion to amend the complaint, and a supplemental complaint. (Mot. to
Alter/Amend/Correct J., Nov. 27, 2023, Docket No. 20; Mot. to Alter/Amend/Suppl.
Pleadings, Dec. 4, 2023, Docket No. 22; Suppl. Compl., Dec. 11, 2023, Docket No. 29.) The
Court denied the motions to amend and dismissed the supplemental complaint on futility
grounds. (Mem. Op. & Order at 9, Feb. 21, 2024, Docket No. 31.) Nelson now requests

the Court give him 90 days to submit an amended complaint in his Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment. (Mot. to Alter or Amend J., Mar. 5, 2024, Docket No. 33.) Because
Nelson has not demonstrated a manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence as
required to amend the Court’s prior order denying his motion to amend the complaint,

the Court will deny Nelson’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.
A party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) within 28 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A Rule

59(e) motion serves the limited function of correcting “manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence.” Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T.
Assocs. of the Black Hills,

141 F.3d 1284

, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).  “Such 
motions cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise 

arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.”  Id.  
    In his current Motion, Nelson requests 90 more days to submit an amended 
complaint to allow for more time to sort through the documents and legal materials 
regarding his conviction and the four cases he currently has pending in federal court.  

(Mot. to Alter or Amend J. at 1–2, 4.)  Alternatively, Nelson requests that the Court 
provide legal counsel to assist him through the legal process.  (Id. at 2.) 
    The Court liberally construes Nelson’s Motion as a request to amend its order 
denying his previous motion to amend the complaint.  Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94

 

(2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed.”) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court 
should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 
15(a)(2).  But there is “no absolute right to amend a pleading.”  Hammer v. City of Osage 

Beach,

318 F.3d 832, 844

 (8th Cir. 2003).  Leave to amend should be denied where there 
are “compelling reasons,” including “futility of the amendment.”

Id.

 (internal quotation 
omitted).                                                                 

    In its previous order, the Court denied Nelson’s motion to amend the complaint 
after finding his proposed amendments would not cure any deficiencies in the original 
complaint and were therefore futile.  (Mem. Op. & Order at 7.)  In his current Motion, 
Nelson has neither demonstrated a manifest error of law nor newly discovered evidence 

that warrants amending the Court’s denial of his motion to amend the complaint.  He 
does not explain how the deficiencies in his complaint could be cured through this 
amendment.  Instead, Nelson appears to be asking for the opportunity to introduce 
theories, arguments, or evidence that could have been brought previously, by sorting 

through legal documents previously in his possession.  Nelson does not allege that these 
legal documents are new evidence.  While the Court sympathizes with Nelson to the 
extent that sorting through legal documents is a tedious and difficult task, the law is clear 
that Rule 59(e) motions are impermissible absent a showing of manifest error of law or 
newly discovered evidence, and Nelson has not met this standard.          

    Additionally, to the extent that Nelson requests the Court appoint him counsel, the 
Court will decline to do so.  Pro se litigants, whether prisoners or non-prisoners, do not 
have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil cases.  Stevens v. Redwing,

146 F.3d 538

, 546 (8th Cir. 1998).  Rather, the Court has discretion whether to appoint counsel 

for such litigants.  McCall v. Benson,

114 F.3d 754, 756

 (8th Cir. 1997); Mosby v. Mabry,

697 F.2d 213, 214

 (8th Cir. 1982).  In determining whether to appoint counsel, courts 
consider the factual complexity of the case, the ability of the litigant to present his claims, 

the complexity of the legal issues, and whether both the litigant and the court would 
benefit from representation by counsel for both parties.  McCall,

114 F.3d at 756

; Johnson 
v. Williams,

788 F.2d 1319

, 1322–23 (8th Cir. 1986).  Here, the Court finds that neither the 
facts nor the legal issues in this case are so complex as to warrant appointment of counsel.  

Because thus far Nelson has demonstrated an ability to effectively articulate his claims 
and arguments to the Court, appointment of counsel would not substantially benefit him 
or the Court at this time.                                                
    In conclusion, because Nelson has not demonstrated a manifest error of law or 

newly discovered evidence that warrants amending the Court’s previous denial of his 
motion to amend his complaint, the Court will deny Nelson’s Motion to Alter or Amend 
Judgment.

ORDER

     Based on the foregoing, and  all the files,  records, and  proceedings herein,  IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [Docket No. 33] is 
DENIED. 

DATED:  May 14, 2024                              bag HY ebtiin 
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.                         JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
                                            United States District Judge 

                                    -5-