Stephen Wayne Carlson v. Minnesota DEED, No. 15-1603 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Colloton, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Civil Rights. District court's dismissal based on the doctrine of res judicata is summarily affirmed. The district court did not abused its discretion in denying the post-judgment motion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1603 ___________________________ Stephen Wayne Carlson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development; Commissioner Katie Clark Sieben, in Official Capacity; Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, in Official Capacity lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: October 15, 2015 Filed: December 9, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Stephen Carlson brought this action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In earlier proceedings, the district court1 dismissed the action, and this court affirmed. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted Carlson’s petition for a writ of certiorari and directed reconsideration in light of an intervening decision that the Court had rendered. This court then remanded the case to the district court. On remand, the district court dismissed the action on narrower grounds, and Carlson now appeals that dismissal, as well as the district court’s denial of a post-judgment motion. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Carlson’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the action based on the doctrine of res judicata. See Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 533 F.3d 634, 639 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of dismissal on grounds of res judicata). Further, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carlson’s post-judgment motion. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion review of denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeffrey J. Keyes, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
