Edner v. Redwood County District Attorney's Office et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ryan C. Edner,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jason Jacobson, Redwood County Sheriff’s
Department, and Bostyn Thompson, City of
Morgan Police Department,
Defendants.
Case No. 19-cv-2486 (SRN/LIB)
ORDER
Ryan C. Edner, 416 4th Ave. N., Wahpeton, ND 58075, Pro Se Plaintiff
Riley P. Boehm and Vicki A. Hruby, Jardine, Logan & O’Brien, PLLP, 576 Bielenberg
Dr., Ste. 100, Woodbury, MN 55125, for Defendants
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ryan C. Edner’s Corrected Motion to Alter
or Amend Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“Rule 59 Motion”). (R. 59 Mot. [Doc. No.
102]; see also Pl.’s Reply [Doc. No.108].) Mr. Edner seeks to alter or amend the Court’s June
26, 2026 Order [Doc. No. 95] dismissing his complaint with prejudice, along with the
resulting Judgment [Doc. No. 96]. 	Mr. Edner also filed a Proposed Amended Complaint
[Doc. No. 103] as an exhibit to his Rule 59 Motion. Defendants oppose the motion [Doc. No.
106].
Rule 59(e) “was adopted to clarify a district court’s power to correct its own mistakes
CASE 0:19-cv-02486-SRN-LIB Doc. 109 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 3

2
in the time period immediately following entry of judgment.” Chapman v Hiland Partners
GP Holdings, LLC, 862 F.3d 1103, 1110 (8th Cir. 2017). Motions under Rule 59(e) “cannot
be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could
have been offered or raised prior to judgment.” 	Id. at 1112. 	To prevail on a Rule 59(e)
motion, a party must direct the district court to either a mistake in the judgment or to newly
discovered evidence that could not have been discovered prior to the court entering its
decision. See Miller v. Baker Implement Co., 439 F.3d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 2006). “District
courts enjoy broad discretion to alter or amend judgments under Rule 59(e).” Chapman, 862
F.3d at 1110.
The Court agrees with Defendants that the Court previously rejected Mr. Edner’s
arguments, or, to the extent he reframes them, he could have raised them previously. 	He
identifies no error of law in the Court’s use of state court records in its analysis of collateral
estoppel. He impermissibly repeats prior arguments or seeks to reargue his points more fully.
In short, he does not meet the stringent requirements for relief under Rule 59(e).
Nor does Mr. Edner’s Proposed Amended Complaint revive his claims. 	The Court
dismissed his claims with prejudice and entered judgment, and he does not meet the stringent
requirements for relief under Rule 59(e). In re SuperValu, Inc., 925 F.3d 955, 961 (8th Cir.
2019) (noting that to revive dismissed claims, postjudgment, “the original judgment must be
set aside under Rule 59 or 60 before amendment can be permitted under Rule 15(a)(2).”).
Nor does not identify any newly discovered evidence. To the contrary, Mr. Edner’s proposed
allegations were available to him before entry of judgment. 	See United States v. Metro St.
Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933–34 (8th Cir. 2006) (denying postjudgment motion for
CASE 0:19-cv-02486-SRN-LIB Doc. 109 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 3

3
new trial where “new” evidence was readily available to movant prior to entry of judgment,
and movant raised only “new opinions and suspicions” in support of motion for relief).
Accordingly, based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Corrected Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) [Doc. No. 102] is DENIED.
Dated: October 8, 2026 	s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge
CASE 0:19-cv-02486-SRN-LIB Doc. 109 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 3