Morrison v. City of Minneapolis et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Alan Morrison,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Minneapolis and Christopher
Steward,
Defendants.
Civ. No. 16-2242 (PAM/SER)
ORDER
Summary judgment was entered in this matter on behalf of Defendants in January
2018. (See Docket No. 51.) For the past eight years, Plaintiff Alan Morrison has sought
repeatedly to have that judgment reversed, vacated, or otherwise invalidated, all to no avail.
Now, once again, Morrison has filed a slew of motions in a case that long ago should have
gone dormant for good.
The motions filed by Morrison can be grouped, roughly, into two categories. In the
first category of motions, Morrison again would like the Court to revisit the judgment
entered in this matter. 	The Court could do so only pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4)–(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Morrison has not established that any of those
provisions necessitates that the judgment be vacated. The judgment entered in this matter
eight years ago will not be disturbed.
In the second category of motions, Morrison seeks ancillary forms of relief that, if
granted, would not necessarily call into question the validity of the judgment in this matter.
CASE 0:16-cv-02242-PAM-SER Doc. 143 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Each of these motions are denied as well. 	The Court has already rejected (repeatedly)
Morrison’s requests for unsealing of certain records in this case, and nothing in the most
recent motions convinces the Court that these earlier decisions were mistaken. Morrison
has 	not 	plausibly 	alleged 	that 	Defendants 	or 	Defendants’ 	counsel 	has 	engaged 	in
sanctionable conduct. Appointment of counsel, as Morrison requests, would not serve any
useful purpose, because an attorney cannot do anything helpful on Morrison’s behalf at
this point. Each of the motions filed by Morrison will therefore be denied.
Finally, Morrison has had more than adequate opportunity to seek relief from the
judgment in this matter in the eight years since that judgment was entered. The order of
dismissal can no longer be appealed, and the judgment will not be revisited pursuant to
Rule 60(b). 	There is no reasonable basis upon which Morrison should continue to file
motions (or anything else) in this matter. 	Accordingly, Morrison will be restricted from
filing documents in this matter1 absent the advance permission of the Court. 	Any
documents submitted by Morrison for filing in this matter that are not authorized by the
Court will be disposed of. This case is over.
1 This restriction order does not apply to any notice of appeal that Morrison might file
seeking review of this order. But Morrison will not be granted in forma pauperis status by
this Court on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
CASE 0:16-cv-02242-PAM-SER Doc. 143 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Each of the pending motions of Plaintiff Alan Morrison (Docket Nos. 111,
112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,
131, and 132) are DENIED; and
2. 	Morrison is RESTRICTED from filing documents in this matter absent
advance permission of the Court.
Dated: March 26, 2026 	s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
CASE 0:16-cv-02242-PAM-SER Doc. 143 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3