Knode v. Erickson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDREW DWIGHT KNODE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OFFICER JOSEPH ERICKSON,
Defendant.
4:19-CV-04181-KES
ORDER DENYING
RULE 60(b) MOTION
Plaintiff, Andrew Dwight Knode, moves under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60 to reconsider the court’s order of July 12, 2021, granting
summary judgment in favor of defendant, Officer Joseph Erickson. Docket 78.
Officer Erickson opposes the motion. Docket 79.
Rule 60(b) provides that “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may
relieve a party . . . from a[n] . . . order” based on at least one of six enumerated
reasons. “A district court should grant a Rule 60(b) motion ‘only upon an
adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.’ ” Richards v. Aramark Servs.,
Inc., 108 F.3d 925, 927 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Tracts 10 & 11
of Lakeview Heights, 51 F.3d 117, 120 (8th Cir. 1995)). The court has “wide
discretion” in ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion. Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045,
1048 (8th Cir. 2008).
Knode alleges that he is entitled to relief on the grounds of (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) fraud; (3) voidness of the
judgment; and (4) any other reason that justifies relief from the judgment.
Case 4:19-cv-04181-KES Document 82 Filed 12/09/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Docket 78 at 1-2. First, Knode contends that he made a mistake when he
accidently forgot to include Exhibit A when he filed his response to Erickson’s
motion for summary judgment. Id. at 2. But the record reflects that Exhibit A
was docketed the same day, June 21, 2021, as Knode’s response to the motion
for summary judgment. Dockets 71-1, 66. Although the court did not
specifically reference Exhibit A in its order granting the motion for summary
judgment, it did consider it. Exhibit A is the case summary for the case entitled
State of South Dakota vs. Andrew Dwight Knode, 66CRI18-000034. Docket 71-
1. Knode contends that this docket sheet shows that “the documents that
Officer Erickson ‘alleges’ to be legitimate and legally binding; Affidavit In
Support Of Request For Search Warrant (To Be Used For DUI Evidence Draws
Only), Search Warrant (To Be Used For DUI Evidence Draws Only), and Verified
Inventory; were in fact never entered into the Court record, thereby making
them falsified.” Docket 78 at 4.
But Officer Erickson filed certified copies of the Affidavit in Support of
Request for Search Warrant (To be Used for DUI Evidence Draws Only) and of
the Search Warrant (To be Used for DUI Evidence Draws Only). Dockets 33-2,
33-3. The caption on those documents indicates they were filed in Yankton
County case 66SWA18-000008 entitled State of South Dakota vs. Andrew
Dwight Knode. The court takes judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence
201 of the docket sheet for this case, a copy of which is attached hereto as
exhibit 1. The docket sheet for the search warrant matter reflects that on
January 18, 2018, the following documents were filed with the Yankton County
Case 4:19-cv-04181-KES Document 82 Filed 12/09/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Clerk of Courts: Affidavit in Support of a Search Warrant, Search Warrant, and
Verified Inventory. Because the docket sheet filed by Knode—Exhibit A—is not
the docket sheet related to the issuance of the search warrant, Exhibit A was
not material to the issue of whether Officer Erickson was entitled to summary
judgment. That is why the court did not discuss the Exhibit A in its order
granting summary judgment—not because of a mistake. As a result, Knode is
not entitled to relief from the summary judgment order due to mistake.
Second, Knode contends that Officer Erickson committed fraud upon the
court because Exhibit A shows that the documents Erickson supplied to the
court were fraudulent. Docket 78 at 6. Exhibit 1 attached to this opinion,
however, shows that Officer Erickson’s documents were in fact filed with the
Clerk of Courts and there is no evidence to show that they are fraudulent.
Third, Knode argues that the judgment is void because he was denied
due process when the court failed to consider Exhibit A. Id. at 7. 	The court did
consider Exhibit A and concluded it was not relevant because it was not the
docket sheet for the search warrant. Therefore, Knode was not denied due
process and the judgment is not void.
Finally, Knode states that the court’s failure to examine his evidence
amounts to “extraordinary circumstances.” Id. at 9. Because the court did
consider Knode’s evidence, he has failed to show extraordinary circumstances
justifying relief from the judgment.
As the court found in its order granting defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, Knode’s allegations about the falsification of evidence are
Case 4:19-cv-04181-KES Document 82 Filed 12/09/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

4
unsupported self-serving allegations that are insufficient to withstand a motion
for summary judgment. See Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516, 527 (8th Cir.
2007).
The court has reviewed its order of July 12, 2021, as well as the
additional briefing filed by both parties regarding this motion. The court “find[s]
no application of an erroneous view of the law or erroneous assessment of
evidence by the district court,” and Knode has not identified exceptional
circumstances justifying reconsideration. Richards, 108 F.3d at 927. Thus, it is
ORDERED that Knode’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b) (Docket 78) is
denied.
Dated December 9, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:19-cv-04181-KES Document 82 Filed 12/09/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>