Henry v. Servion
Sean Bruce Henry v. Servion, Inc.; Felhaber Larson Law Firm; Lauren M. Weber; Microsoft Corporation; GitHub; Google LLC; Apple Inc.; Meta Platforms, Inc.; Facebook, Inc.; WhatsApp, Inc.; X.com (Twitter); Wells Fargo & Co.; Goldman Sachs; PayPal; Apple Pay; Google Pay; Microsoft Wallet App; Minnesota 2nd District Ramsey County Civil Court; Aaron Hall; Judge Sara R. Grewing; and One Million Doe Defendants
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-03350
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Sean Bruce Henry v. Servion, Inc. et al., Judge Provinzino denied plaintiff Sean Bruce Henry's motions to amend or reopen the court's earlier judgment dismissing his case, finding he offered no valid legal basis for either motion.
Plaintiff Sean Bruce Henry, a pro se litigant (representing himself) who sought to reopen a dismissed case against a large number of defendants including technology companies, financial institutions, a law firm, and state court officials.
What happened
In Sean Bruce Henry v. Servion, Inc. et al. (Case No. 25-cv-3350), plaintiff Sean Bruce Henry had his amended complaint dismissed without prejudice on October 21, 2025, after the court conducted a pre-service review — a process allowed when a plaintiff asks to proceed without paying court fees — and found it legally deficient. Two days later, Henry filed motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), which are procedural tools used to ask a court to correct or reopen a judgment it has already entered.
Henry raised three arguments in support of his motions: (1) that the case was dismissed before the defendants were served; (2) that the court dismissed the case without ruling on his motion to add hundreds of exhibits to the record; and (3) that alleged document alterations described in his complaint prevented him from fully presenting his claims. The court rejected all three arguments. It explained that pre-service dismissal was legally authorized because Henry had asked to proceed without paying fees. It also clarified that it had in fact already denied the motion to add exhibits, finding that request improper. Finally, it noted that the document-alteration allegations had already been considered and found insufficient.
Judge Provinzino denied both motions, explaining that the rules Henry relied upon cannot be used simply to repeat arguments or raise issues that were already considered and rejected by the court. The case remains dismissed without prejudice, meaning Henry is not necessarily barred from refiling, though the court did not address that question in this order.
The detailed version
This order, issued by United States District Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the District of Minnesota on October 28, 2025, concerns plaintiff Sean Bruce Henry's post-judgment motions in Case No. 25-cv-3350.
Background
On October 21, 2025, the court dismissed Henry's amended complaint without prejudice following a mandatory pre-service screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) — a federal statute that requires courts to review and, if appropriate, dismiss cases filed by plaintiffs who have been granted leave to proceed without prepaying filing fees (commonly called 'in forma pauperis' status). The court found the amended complaint legally deficient. Henry then filed motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) seeking to amend or vacate the judgment.
Legal Standards Applied
The court recited the governing standards for both rules. A Rule 59(e) motion — a motion to alter or amend a judgment — serves only the limited function of correcting manifest (i.e., obvious) errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used to introduce new evidence, raise new legal theories, or simply re-argue points already rejected. Citing Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284 (8th Cir. 1998), and Benson v. Kemske, No. 17-cv-3839 (D. Minn. 2021). A Rule 60(b) motion — a motion for relief from a final judgment — may be granted for reasons such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or any other reason justifying relief, but likewise cannot serve as a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits. Citing Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 1999).
Henry's Three Arguments and the Court's Responses:
- Henry argued that his amended complaint was dismissed before being served on defendants. The court rejected this, noting that because Henry was proceeding in forma pauperis, the court was expressly authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to dismiss before service. The court cited Carter v. Schafer, 273 F. App'x 581 (8th Cir. 2008), confirming this authority applies to all in forma pauperis litigants, not just prisoners.
- Henry argued the court dismissed his case without ruling on his motion to supplement the record with hundreds of exhibits. The court rejected this as factually incorrect, pointing to its earlier order (ECF No. 12 at 9–10), which had already denied that motion as an improper attempt to use exhibits to cure obvious pleading failures in the complaint itself.
- Henry argued that alleged document alterations described in his complaint prevented him from fully presenting his claims. The court rejected this as an attempt to re-argue allegations already considered and found deficient in the earlier dismissal order (ECF No. 12 at 8–10).
Ruling
The court denied Henry's Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions in full (ECF No. 13). The underlying dismissal without prejudice remains in effect.
Defendants named in the case include Servion, Inc.; Felhaber Larson Law Firm; Lauren M. Weber; Microsoft Corporation; GitHub; Google LLC; Apple Inc.; Meta Platforms, Inc.; Facebook, Inc.; WhatsApp, Inc.; X.com (Twitter); Wells Fargo & Co.; Goldman Sachs; PayPal; Apple Pay; Google Pay; Microsoft Wallet App; Minnesota 2nd District Ramsey County Civil Court; Aaron Hall; Judge Sara R. Grewing; and One Million Doe Defendants.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.