Traylor v. Gary
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03758
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Traylor v. Gary, Judge Provinzino denied plaintiff Rayco Traylor's motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit, finding that he merely repeated the same arguments already rejected and did not show the extraordinary circumstances required to reopen the case.
Rayco Traylor, a pro se (self-represented) plaintiff who previously had a civil rights complaint dismissed without prejudice, and others in similar situations who file post-judgment motions simply repeating prior arguments without presenting new evidence or exceptional circumstances.
What happened
In Traylor v. Gary (Case No. 24-cv-3758), Rayco Traylor had filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — a federal law allowing people to sue government officials for civil rights violations — against more than a dozen defendants including employees of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The court dismissed his complaint on January 23, 2025, finding that he had not adequately alleged that his First Amendment activity caused the retaliatory acts he described. Traylor did not appeal that dismissal.
On August 20, 2025, Traylor filed a motion asking the court to reconsider or grant a 'rehearing.' Because the motion came more than 28 days after the original judgment, the court treated it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a final judgment to be reopened only in exceptional circumstances — such as newly discovered evidence, fraud, or a court mistake. Traylor presented no new evidence or new arguments; he simply insisted that his original allegations were sufficient and that the court had been wrong to dismiss his case.
Judge Provinzino denied the motion, explaining that Rule 60(b) is not a tool for simply re-arguing the merits of a case already decided, and that merely repeating prior claims does not meet the high bar required. The court also rejected Traylor's request to 'remand' the case to state court, noting that because the case had never originated in state court, remand was not possible, and that the court has no authority to file a new case in state court on a party's behalf. The court noted, however, that since the original dismissal was without prejudice, Traylor remains free to file a new complaint in state court on his own if he chooses.
The detailed version
This order, issued by United States District Judge Laura M. Provinzino in the District of Minnesota, denies plaintiff Rayco Traylor's motion for relief from judgment in Case No. 24-cv-3758 (LMP/JFD).
Background
Traylor filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal statute permitting lawsuits against government actors for civil rights violations) against defendants including Gary, John Doe, Jane Doe, Michael Warner, Denise C. Kearns, MN Dept of Corrections, Bill Bolin, Casalenda, Dan Moe, Hennen, Hammer, and Jamison Doeden. On January 23, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which authorizes courts to dismiss complaints filed by persons proceeding without full payment of filing fees ('in forma pauperis') if they fail to state a claim. The dismissal specifically addressed Traylor's First Amendment retaliation claim, finding he failed to plausibly allege a causal link between his protected First Amendment activity and the retaliatory acts he complained of. Traylor did not appeal.
The Motion
On August 20, 2025 — approximately seven months after the dismissal — Traylor filed a motion styled as a 'rehearing,' asking the court to reconsider the January 23 order or alternatively remand the case to state court. He argued that the court erred in dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim because his causation allegations were sufficient. He offered no new evidence or arguments, only reiterating his prior allegations.
Legal Framework
The court analyzed the motion under the two available post-judgment reconsideration mechanisms under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment, which must be filed within 28 days of judgment) and Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from a final judgment). Because Traylor's motion was filed well beyond the 28-day window for Rule 59(e), the court construed it solely under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment on grounds including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or 'any other reason that justifies relief.' The court cited Eighth Circuit precedent (U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 320 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2003)) establishing that Rule 60(b) is reserved for 'extraordinary relief' requiring 'exceptional circumstances,' and Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 1999), holding that Rule 60(b) 'is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.'
Ruling on Rule 60(b) Motion
The court found that Traylor's one-paragraph motion did nothing more than repeat the same allegations and arguments already considered and rejected at the dismissal stage. It held this was insufficient to meet the high standard for Rule 60(b) relief and denied the motion.
Ruling on Remand Request
The court also denied Traylor's alternative request to 'remand' the case to state court, explaining that the case did not originate in state court and therefore cannot be remanded there. The court further stated it lacks authority to initiate a new action in state court on a party's behalf. The court noted, however, that the original dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Traylor retains the ability to file a new complaint in state court himself.
File Request
Traylor also requested 'the entire file.' The court noted uncertainty about the scope of this request but directed the Clerk of Court to print and mail Traylor's original complaint (ECF No. 1) to him along with this order.
Disposition
Traylor's Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. The Clerk is ordered to mail the complaint alongside the order.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.