Moutazbillah Abdul Sattar v. Hennepin Healthcare System
Moutazbillah Abdul Sattar v. Hennepin Healthcare System
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CIVIL NO.: 25-1650(DSD/DTS)
Moutazbillah Abdul Sattar, Plaintiff, v. ORDER Hennepin Healthcare System, Defendant.
This matter is before the court upon plaintiff Moutazbillah Abdul Sattar’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). “Under Rule 60(b), the district court may grant relief from a final order or judgment for mistake, newly- discovered evidence, fraud, voidness, satisfaction, or other reasons.” Adduono v. World Hockey Ass’n, 824 F.2d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1987).
The court dismissed Sattar’s complaint on September 30, 2025, on the basis of res judicata. ECF No. 37. Sattar now contends that the case should be reopened because he has found newly discovered evidence that will change the court’s determination.
The court disagrees. Sattar relies on facts that were actually presented to the court before it ruled on defendant’s motion to dismiss. The evidence is therefore not newly discovered and cannot serve as the basis to reopen the case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to reopen and for relief from judgment [ECF No. 39] is denied.
Dated: October 27, 2025 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CIVIL NO.: 25-1650(DSD/DTS)
Moutazbillah Abdul Sattar, Plaintiff, v. ORDER Hennepin Healthcare System, Defendant.
This matter is before the court upon plaintiff Moutazbillah Abdul Sattar’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). “Under Rule 60(b), the district court may grant relief from a final order or judgment for mistake, newly- discovered evidence, fraud, voidness, satisfaction, or other reasons.” Adduono v. World Hockey Ass’n, 824 F.2d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1987).
The court dismissed Sattar’s complaint on September 30, 2025, on the basis of res judicata. ECF No. 37. Sattar now contends that the case should be reopened because he has found newly discovered evidence that will change the court’s determination.
The court disagrees. Sattar relies on facts that were actually presented to the court before it ruled on defendant’s motion to dismiss. The evidence is therefore not newly discovered and cannot serve as the basis to reopen the case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to reopen and for relief from judgment [ECF No. 39] is denied.
Dated: October 27, 2025 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.