Holmes v. County of Ramsey

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota June 17, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Stephan Nicholas Holmes, Case No. 23-cv-2186 (KMM/DJF)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

County of Ramsey; Ramsey County Public
Health, Correctional Health; Kristen, Ramsey
County ADI Correction Health Supervisor;
Dr. Van Vraaken, Correctional Health Med.
Director; Lt. Rodriguez, Director of Ramsey
County Jail; Jane Does 1-12; and John Does
1-12,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on petitioner Stephan Nicholas Holmes’s motion to reinstate
his civil complaint. [ECF No. 8].
Mr. Holmes initially filed this lawsuit on July 21, 2023 against numerous parties, alleging
violations of his civil rights. [Compl., ECF No. 1]. In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
dated September 5, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended dismissing
Mr. Holmes’s petition without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(b) for failure to
prosecute. [R&R (Sept. 5, 2023), ECF No. 5]. Judge Foster found that Holmes failed to prosecute
this action because he never submitted the initial partial filing fee and failed to communicate with
the Court about his case since commencing the action. Mr. Holmes did not object to Judge Foster’s
September 5th R&R. The Court agreed with Judge Foster’s recommendation, accepted the R&R,
and dismissed the action without prejudice on November 28, 2023. [Order, ECF No. 6]. The
Clerk entered Judgment the following day and the matter was closed. [Judgment, ECF No. 7].
Five months after the date of Judgment, Mr. Holmes filed a motion asking the Court to
reopen this matter and allow him to proceed, which the Court liberally construes as a motion for
relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. [ECF No. 8]. In support of his motion, Mr. Holmes
states that he “was in the process of transfer[ing] prisons” and he “didn’t get certain paperwork for

30–45 days late and had a lot of health stuff going on that put [him] under a lot of mental distress
at the time.” Id. Judge Foster issued a second R&R recommending that Mr. Holmes’s motion to
reinstate this case be denied. [R&R (May 3, 2024), ECF No. 9].
Mr. Holmes objects to Judge Foster’s May 3rd R&R recommending that the motion to
reinstate the case be denied. [ECF No. 10]. Mr. Holmes reiterates that his paperwork was received
late as a result of his move back to MCF Oak Park Heights from MCF Rush City prison. [ECF
No. 10 ¶ 3–4]. Further, he asserts that he was going through an “extreme amount of emotional
distress and depression as a result of being sleep deprived by having to sleep in [his] wheelchair.”
[Id. ¶ 5]. Lastly, Mr. Holmes asserts that he was also “dealing with a lot of pain due to the lack of
accommodations and needed physical therapy and meds.” [Id. ¶ 6].

The Court has carefully considered Mr. Holmes’s motion, and though the Court
sympathizes with the difficulties Mr. Holmes has encountered, his motion is denied. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party to obtain relief from a final judgment, like the one entered
in this case, and reopen the proceedings “under a limited set of circumstances, including fraud,
mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez v. Crosby,

545 U.S. 524, 528

 (2005).  In 
addition to the more specific reasons why relief from a judgment may be entered under Rule 
60(b)(1)–(5), under Rule 60(b)(6) a case may be reopened when the movant shows “any . . . reason 
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”

Id.

 at 528–29 (quotation omitted).  But relief 
under  the  “catchall”  provision  of  Rule  60(b)(6)  is  available  only  under  “extraordinary 
circumstances.”  Buck v. Davis,

580 U.S. 100, 123

 (2017) (quoting Gonzalez,

545 U.S. at 535

); 
see also Schwieger v. Farm Bur. Ins. Co. of Neb.,

207 F.3d 480, 487

 (8th Cir. 2000) (referring to 
“exceptional circumstances”).  For exceptional circumstances to exist they must “‘have denied the 
moving party a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim and have prevented the moving party 

from receiving adequate redress.’”  Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t. of Corrections,

506 F.3d 1111, 1117

 
(8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Harley v. Zoesch,

413 F.3d 866, 871

 (8th Cir. 2005)). 
    The motion does not establish any of the grounds for relief from a judgment under Rule 
60(b)(1)–(5), nor does it present exceptional circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6).  For example, the 
motion does not suggest that the judgment is the result of fraud or mistake, nor that it should be 
vacated due to newly discovered evidence.  And though the Court does not doubt that a lack of 
stability as a result of prison transfers and health issues can interfere with a litigant’s ability to 
pursue a case, Mr. Holmes has not shown exceptional circumstances due to those issues in this 
case.                                                                     
    Although Mr. Holmes may have received Judge Foster’s Order to pay the initial filing fee 

at least 45 days late, that does not provide a legitimate justification for why it took Mr. Holmes so 
long to communicate with the Court regarding his petition.  Indeed, even after those 45 days had 
passed, Mr. Holmes did not file anything in response to receiving that Order, did not object to the 
September 5th R&R, and did not seek relief from the judgment for five months after its entry.  In 
addition, other factors played a role in Mr. Holmes’s lack of prosecution in this matter that do not 
justify the exceptional relief of reopening his case—he indicates that he was busy addressing three 
to four additional lawsuits during this period.  This weighs against a finding that circumstances 
beyond his control denied him a full and fair opportunity to litigate his case.  Accordingly, the 
May  3rd  R&R  [ECF  No. 9],  is  ACCEPTED,  Mr. Holmes’s  objection  [ECF  No. 10]  is 
OVERRULED, and the motion to reopen this proceeding [ECF No. 8] is DENIED. 

Date: June 17, 2024             s/Katherine Menendez                     
                                Katherine Menendez                       
                                United States District Court