United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Logan Lundahl and Holli Lundahl, filed a pro se action
against defendants and requested leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, which was later granted. Dockets 1, 2, 3, and 15.
In their amended complaint the plaintiffs allege over fifteen
different violations of various federal and state statutes.
See Docket 27 at 1-2. Plaintiffs asserted that this
Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants due to a
RICO statute. Id.
defendants' filed motions to dismiss (Dockets 31, 34, 36,
and 41) based on lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs
responded to the defendants' motions to dismiss. Dockets
49, 50, 51. This Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss because plaintiffs failed to show that this Court had
personal jurisdiction over the defendants. See
Docket 98. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants and
against plaintiffs. Docket 99.
plaintiff, Holli Lundahl moves to amend the judgment. Docket
101. Plaintiff, Logan Lundahl did not sign this motion, but
Holli asserts that the "Plaintiffs HOLLI LUNDAHL and
LOGAN LUNDAHL" filed the motion. See Docket 101
at 1, 4. This Court notes that under 28 U.S.C. § 1654
"[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may
plead and conduct their own cases personally or by
counsel." Further, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11(a) requires that "[e]very pleading, written motion or
other paper must be signed ... by a party personally if the
party is unrepresented." "Pro se litigants may not
represent the interests of other parties."
Litschewski v. Dooley, 2012 WL 3023249 at *n. 1
(D.S.D. July 24, 2012); see e.g., Fymbo v. State Farm
Fire and Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321. (10th Cir. 2000)
("A litigant may bring his own claims to federal court
without counsel, but not the claims of others.") Holli
may not file motions on behalf of plaintiff, Logan Lundahl.
Each pro se litigant must personally sign every pleading and
motion before the court.
own motion to amend the judgment, Holli claims that this
Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint and that she did not
have a chance to respond. Docket 101 at 2. The record shows
that plaintiffs responded to defendants' motions to
dismiss. Dockets 49, 50, 51. Plaintiffs have filed numerous
supplements, declarations, and emergency petitions in this
action. See Dockets 47, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, 81, 82,
83, 84. Holli also filed a declaration and a supplement to
support her motion to amend the judgment. See
Dockets 102 and 103. "Rule 59(e) motions serve the
limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence." Innovative
Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black
Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal
punctuation and citations omitted). The Eighth Circuit has
held that motions for reconsideration" 'cannot in
any case be employed as a vehicle to introduce new evidence
that could have been adduced[.]'" Hagerman v.
Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 401, 414 (8th Cir. 1988)
(quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co.,
827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987). "Such motions cannot
be used to introduce new evidence, tender legal theories, or
raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior
to entry of judgment." United States v. Metropolitan
St. Louis Sever Dist, 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiffs had ample opportunity and did argue why this Court
had personal jurisdiction over the defendants in their
responses to the defendants' motions to dismiss.
See Dockets 49, 50, 51. Holli cannot now use a 59(e)
motion and declaration in support to show personal contacts
that they could have offered or raised in their responses.
Thus, Holli's motion to amend judgment (Docket 101) is
denied. Plaintiff's remaining motions: to amend
complaint (Docket 105); for Rule 54(b)
Certification2 (Docket 106), and Petition for Permission to
File Complaint3 (Docket 107) are denied as moot because this
Court has entered a judgment against the plaintiffs (Docket
99) in this action.
plaintiff s motion to amend judgment (Docket 101) is denied.
plaintiff's remaining motions (Dockets 103, 105, 106,
107) are denied as moot.
 The remaining motions (Dockets 105,
106, 107) have Holli Lundahl and Heidie Lundahl listed as the
plaintiffs. Heidie Lundahl was not a named ...