United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT AND
DENYING OTHER MOTIONS
E. SCHREIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Robert L. Lytle moves the court to alter or amend its
judgment entered on May 4, 2017. Dockets 194 and
194-1. Lytle has also filed several other motions
that primarily seek to challenge the court's personal and
subject-matter jurisdiction. Dockets 197, 200, 201, 205, and
206. Plaintiff, the United States, opposes Lytle's
motions. For the reasons that follow, the court denies each
of Lytle's pending motions.
procedural history of this case is set forth more fully in
the court's May 4, 2017 order. See Docket 193 at
1-6. The following facts are relevant to the pending motions:
October 21, 2014, the United States filed a complaint seeking
a permanent injunction against the defendants under 21 U.S.C.
§ 332(a) for alleged violations of the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin defendants from violating the
FDCA during the pendency of the proceedings. Dockets 1 and 4.
Lytle responded to the complaint and request for a
preliminary injunction by challenging the court's
personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. Dockets 37 and 40.
On January 14, 2015, Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken entered an
order denying Lytle's jurisdictional challenges and
entering a preliminary injunction against defendants. Dockets
47 and 48. On January 26, 2015, Lytle filed an interlocutory
appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the
court's jurisdiction and the preliminary injunction.
Lytle's interlocutory appeal was pending, litigation on
the United States's request for a permanent injunction
continued. A bench trial on the permanent injunction was held
on March 3-4, 2015. Docket 81. On April 15-16, 2015, a show
cause hearing was held to determine whether to hold Lytle in
contempt of court for alleged violations of the preliminary
injunction. Docket 103. This hearing, however, was continued
until October 6, 2015, so Lytle could retain counsel to deal
with potential Fifth Amendment consequences resulting from
the United States's decision to call Lytle adversely.
August 21, 2015, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion on
Lytle's interlocutory appeal. Lytle v. U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., 612 F. App'x 861 (8th
Cir. 2015) (per curiam). In its opinion, the Eighth
Circuit affirmed Chief Judge Viken's finding that the
court had jurisdiction over Lytle and his actions.
Id. at 861-62. But the Eighth Circuit remanded the
preliminary injunction for the court to determine
“whether a more narrowly-tailored injunction might be
sufficient . . . .” Id. at 863. The Eighth
Circuit also observed that reconsideration of the preliminary
injunction on remand “may become moot” by the
entry of a permanent injunction. Id.
the Eighth Circuit's decision, Lytle filed a motion in
the district court seeking reconsideration of the preliminary
injunction. Docket 128. The motion raised eight objections
that challenged the scope of the preliminary injunction.
October 6, 2015, the show cause hearing resumed. Docket 136.
At the hearing, after a discussion between the court and the
parties, it was agreed that Chief Judge Viken would rule on
each of Lytle's eight objections to the preliminary
injunction and enter an order regarding a permanent
injunction incorporating his rulings on Lytle's
objections. Docket 154 at 24-34. This in turn negated
the need for Chief Judge Viken to determine whether to hold
Lytle in contempt of court for allegedly violating the terms
of the preliminary injunction because, as the Eighth Circuit
had noted, entry of a permanent injunction would moot any
issues remaining regarding the preliminary injunction.
Id. Chief Judge Viken entered a permanent injunction
in favor of the United States at the conclusion of this
hearing. Docket 138. The permanent injunction was amended on
October 13, 2015, to make grammatical and nonsubstantive
revisions. Docket 139 (Amended Permanent Injunction).
the entry of the Amended Permanent Injunction, Lytle's
attorney withdrew from his representation of Lytle with
Lytle's consent. Docket 143. On December 3, 2015, Lytle
filed a notice of appeal of the Amended Permanent Injunction.
Docket 147. On September 6, 2016, the Eighth Circuit affirmed
Chief Judge Viken's entry of the Amended Permanent
Injunction. United States v. 2035, Inc., 668 F.
App'x 679 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). In the
opinion, the Eighth Circuit found that the court had
jurisdiction to enter a permanent injunction. Id. at
679 (citations omitted). The Eighth Circuit also concluded
that Chief Judge Viken's Amended Permanent Injunction
order was sufficiently tailored to address Lytle's
violations of the FDCA. Id. (citations omitted).
the Eighth Circuit's affirmance of the Amended Permanent
Injunction, Lytle filed nine additional motions challenging
the validity of the Amended Permanent Injunction and the
court's jurisdiction over him.Dockets 164, 165, 170, 180,
181, 185, 187, 189, 191. On May 4, 2017, this court entered
an order denying each of Lytle's attempts to avoid
enforcement of the Amended Permanent Injunction and
concluding that jurisdiction over Lytle and his case was
appropriate. See Docket 193.
of the case doctrine is “a means to prevent the
relitigation of a settled issue in a case.” Gander
Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc., 540 F.3d 827, 830
(8th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Bartsh, 69
F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1995)). “The doctrine
‘requires courts to adhere to decisions made in earlier
proceedings in order to ensure uniformity of decisions,
protect the expectations of the parties, and promote judicial
economy.' ” Id. (quoting Bartsh,
69 F.3d at 866). “ ‘[T]he doctrine posits that
when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should
continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in
the same case.' ” Thompson v. Comm'r,
821 F.3d 1008, 1011 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Gander
Mountain Co., 540 F.3d at 830). “Although a court
should not reopen issues already decided, if a prior decision
‘is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest
injustice, ' reopening may be appropriate.”
Id. (quoting Wong v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 789 F.3d 889, 898 (8th Cir. 2015) cert.
denied 136 S.Ct. 507 (2015)).
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) was adopted to clarify a
district court's power to correct its own mistakes in the
time period immediately following entry of judgment.”
Chapman v. Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC, 862
F.3d 1103, 1110-11 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Innovative
Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black
Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998)). “Rule
59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting
‘manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.' ” United States v. Metro.
St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d
407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988)). “ ‘Such motions cannot
be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories,
or raise arguments which could have been offered or ...