Nordgren v. Hennepin County, No. 22-1902 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Christine M. Nordgren's parental rights were terminated in a Minnesota state court. Instead of appealing this decision, she filed a federal lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Hennepin County, and various other parties involved in her case, alleging a range of constitutional, federal, and state claims. She sought multiple forms of damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. The district court dismissed all federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. Nordgren then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the district court interpreted as a request to reconsider and amend her pleadings, and denied it. Nordgren appealed this decision.
The Hennepin County defendants moved to dismiss Nordgren's appeal as untimely, arguing that she did not appeal the judgment in a timely manner and that the district court's order denying her motion for reconsideration was not separately appealable and did not extend the appeal period. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with the defendants, determining that Nordgren's motion did not qualify as an appealable motion under Rule 59(e), which is designed to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. As such, the appeal period began on the date the judgment was entered, and Nordgren's notice of appeal, filed beyond the 30-day appeal period, was untimely.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals dismissed Nordgren's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Melloy and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. A hearing panel assigned the case on the merits is free to revisit a motion to dismiss for want of appellate jurisdiction even though an administrative or motions panel of the court has previously denied such a motion; this case is distinguishable from cases applying the doctrine of the law of the case because the record has been developed since the entry of the order, and it is clear that the panel's ruling was based on an inapplicable basis for tolling the appeal period; the district court did not err in characterizing plaintiff's motion as one for reconsideration and, as such, the motion did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal; her appeal is untimely, and the appeal is dismissed. Judge Melloy, dissenting.
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.