Soto v. University of Minnesota’s Mechanical Engineering Graduate Admissions…
Benjamin Mario Soto v. University of Minnesota (U of M)’s Mechanical Engineering Graduate Admissions Office; University of Minnesota Graduate Admissions Office et al (U of M); U of M Equal Opportunity & Title IX Compliance Office et al; Joe Borer-Bell, Senior Associate (Deputy) of U of M Equal Opportunity & Title IX Compliance Office; Equal Opportunity & title IX Compliance Office et al; College of Science and Engineering Dean’s Office et al.; Peter Bruggeman, Director of University of Minnesota (U of M)’s Mechanical Engineering Graduate Admissions Office; John K. Gardner, Graduate Program Manager of University of Minnesota (U of M)’s Mechanical Engineering Graduate Admissions Office; Suhasa Kodandaramaiah, Graduate Program Manager University of Minnesota (U of M)’s Mechanical Engineering Graduate Admissions Office; Tina Marisam, Director of Equal Opportunity & Title IX Compliance Office; Dean’s Office of the College of Science & Engineering; Andrew G. Akkeyne, Dean of […]
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-00758
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
Judge Blackwell denied all four of Benjamin Mario Soto's post-judgment motions in Soto v. University of Minnesota and barred him from filing further papers in the closed case without court permission.
Plaintiffs or litigants who continue filing post-judgment motions in closed federal cases after an appeal has been affirmed may face court-imposed filing restrictions barring further submissions without prior judicial approval.
What happened
In Soto v. University of Minnesota et al., plaintiff Benjamin Mario Soto sued the University of Minnesota and various university officials, alleging federal discrimination claims and related constitutional challenges arising from the graduate admissions process. The case was dismissed without prejudice in December 2025, a motion for reconsideration was denied, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment in April 2026.
Despite the case being closed and fully affirmed on appeal, Soto continued filing motions — a second and third request for rehearing, two constitutional challenge motions, and another rehearing request after the Eighth Circuit's ruling — all of which restated arguments already considered and rejected. The court found that none of the motions identified newly discovered evidence, a change in controlling law, or any manifest error in the prior rulings, and that Soto's continued disagreement with the outcomes did not justify reopening the case.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell denied all four pending motions and, citing federal courts' inherent authority to protect judicial resources from repetitive and frivolous filings, imposed a filing restriction: Soto may not submit any additional papers in this closed case without first obtaining the court's permission, and any submission that attempts to relitigate already-resolved matters may be returned without action.
The detailed version
- Soto v. University of Minnesota’s Mechanical Engineering Graduate Admissions… · No. 0:25-cv-00758
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- June 22, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Benjamin Mario Soto brought suit against the University of Minnesota and numerous university officials and offices — including individuals identified as Peter Bruggeman, John K. Gardner, Suhasa Kodandaramaiah, Tina Marisam, Joe Borer-Bell, and Andrew G. Akkeyne — alleging claims related to the mechanical engineering graduate admissions process.
On December 3, 2025, the district court entered judgment dismissing Soto's Amended Complaint without prejudice. The dismissal order held: (1) sovereign immunity barred certain claims; (2) Soto had not alleged a protected property interest; (3) he had not pleaded facts supporting intentional discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal civil rights statute that allows suits against state actors) or Title VI (a federal law prohibiting discrimination in programs receiving federal funding); and (4) the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (the authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal ones) over the remaining state-law claim.
Soto moved for reconsideration, which was denied because he failed to identify newly discovered evidence, manifest errors of law or fact, or other grounds warranting reconsideration. He then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. While that appeal was pending, Soto continued to file additional motions in the district court. On April 21, 2026, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment, and the mandate (the official order returning jurisdiction to the district court) issued on June 1, 2026. Shortly after, Soto filed yet another motion seeking rehearing.
The Pending Motions
Four motions were before the court: - Doc. No. 39: Second Request/Motion for a Rehearing - Doc. No. 43: Third Request/Motion U.S. Constitutional Challenge - Doc. No. 45: Fourth Request/Motion U.S. Constitutional Challenge - Doc. No. 55: Request/Motion for a Rehearing (filed after the Eighth Circuit ruling)
Despite their varying titles, the court found that all four motions raised variations of arguments already presented and rejected. Specifically, Soto continued to argue that (1) discriminatory intent is not required to state his federal discrimination claims, (2) he has a constitutional property interest arising from alleged nepotism in the admissions process, and (3) his constitutional theories were not adequately addressed by prior rulings.
Legal Standard: Motions for Reconsideration
The court reiterated that motions for reconsideration serve a limited purpose — they allow for correction of manifest errors of law or fact or consideration of newly discovered evidence, citing Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988). They may not be used to reargue previously decided issues or advance theories that could have been raised earlier.
Analysis and Ruling on the Motions
The court found that Soto identified no newly discovered evidence, no intervening change in controlling law, and no manifest error in either the dismissal order or the order denying reconsideration. The motions largely restated arguments already considered and rejected. The court also emphasized the advanced procedural posture: judgment was entered, reconsideration was denied, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, and the mandate issued. Soto's disagreement with those rulings does not provide a basis for reopening the case. All four motions were denied.
Filing Restriction
The court then addressed whether to restrict Soto's future filings. Federal courts have inherent authority — as well as authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (the All Writs Act) — to manage their dockets and protect judicial resources from repetitive and frivolous filings, citing In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988).
The court found that since entry of judgment, Soto had repeatedly filed motions seeking reconsideration of already-resolved matters, continuing to do so even while his appeal was pending and after the Eighth Circuit affirmed. These filings raised no new issues and identified no cognizable basis for post-judgment relief, yet required repeated expenditure of judicial resources.
The court imposed a narrowly tailored filing restriction: Soto may not submit additional filings in this closed case without prior authorization from the court. Any future submission will be reviewed before docketing, and any submission that seeks to relitigate previously resolved matters may be returned without further action.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.