Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01309/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harlan L. Jacobsen
Appellant
Darrel Rensink
Appellee
William Zitterich
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Paul A. Zoss, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the

parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1309

___________

Harlan L. Jacobsen, Editor/Publisher *

of Solo RFD and Single Scene, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Darrel Rensink, Director of IA DOT; *

William Zitterich, Director of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Maintenance Services of IA DOT, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2006

Filed: May 15, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Harlan Jacobsen appeals the magistrate judge’s1

 grant of defendants’ motion for

relief from a 1998 preliminary injunction delineating the restrictions that defendants

could enforce on Jacobsen’s placement of newsracks at Iowa highway rest areas. We

affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2006 Entry ID: 2044686
2

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

In a related case before us on appeal, Jacobsen v. Dep’t of Transp., et al., No.

04-3716 (which we affirm today), the district court2

 held that the rest areas at issue are

nonpublic fora, and that the present restrictions governing placement of the newsracks

comply with the constitutional protection afforded non-public fora. In light of that

holding and the constitutional restrictions with which defendants must comply in the

future given the status of the rest areas as nonpublic fora, we conclude that the

magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (court may relieve party of order if, inter alia, it is no

longer equitable that judgment should have prospective relief), (b)(6) (court may

relieve party from order for any non-listed reason justifying relief). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2006 Entry ID: 2044686