Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the pro se plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint. The court cited multiple deficiencies, including the motion's lack of a signature, failure to specify the requested timeframe, and noncompliance with local rules regarding proposed amendments. Additionally, the court cautioned that granting further amendments could cause undue delay and noted existing authority to deny leave to amend under established federal standards.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint should be granted.
Holdings
- The motion is denied because it is unsigned, fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and the local rule, and the court has discretion to deny extensions that would cause delay or prejudice.
Key quotations
“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), parties must sign every pleading, written motion and other paper that they file with the court.”
“If the plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must file a motion, asking the court’s permission to do so. If the plaintiff files such a motion, he must comply with the court’s local rules.”
Factual background
Plaintiff Steven A. Bailey is incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution, which has been on lockdown since March 10, 2025, preventing his use of the law library. He also suffers from dyslexia, making it difficult for him to read and write without assistance from other inmates.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and subsequently moved for additional time to file a second amended complaint. The motion was filed unsigned and without compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and the local rules.