Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Mark Schultz’s motion for another opportunity to amend his complaint or for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court also denied his requests for intervention regarding his institutional legal loan, concluding that prisoners have no constitutional entitlement to subsidized litigation expenses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Schultz could file a second amended complaint after final judgment without first obtaining relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b).
- Whether Schultz established a basis for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
- Whether a prisoner has a constitutional entitlement to a subsidy or federal-court intervention concerning an institution's legal-loan program.
Holdings
- After final judgment, a plaintiff may amend the complaint only after successfully moving to vacate or set aside the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). Because Schultz did not make such a showing, the court denied his request to file a second amended complaint.
- Reconsideration was unwarranted because Schultz identified none of the Rule 60(b) grounds and made no argument concerning the merits of the dismissal.
- Prisoners do not have a constitutional entitlement to a subsidy to prosecute their lawsuits, and the federal court will not override state policy and procedures governing institutional legal loans.
Factual background
Mark Schultz, who was incarcerated at the Wisconsin Resource Center and proceeding pro se, sought another opportunity to amend his complaint after the district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. He stated that he had worked for several years to enter an earned-release program and had sought assistance before filing suit, but he did not identify any error in the dismissal or present an argument addressing its merits. He also sought court intervention regarding his institutional legal loan.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed the action on February 18, 2026, concluding that the amended complaint failed to state a claim. Schultz filed a notice of appeal on April 6, 2026, and then filed a motion for reconsideration and a request for another opportunity to amend on May 15, 2026. The district court denied the motion to amend or reconsider and denied the requests concerning his legal loan.