Ryne Jon Schnell v. Waukesha County Technical College, Michelle Skinder, Jonathan Pedraza, Sam Saeger, Michael Lango, and Lindsey Davis

Schnell · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin · May 15, 2026 · No. 26-CV-499-JPS-JPS

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin addresses procedural issues in Ryne Jon Schnell’s pro se civil action, including his unauthorized second amended complaint, motions to proceed without prepaying fees, appoint counsel, seal filings, and obtain disability-related relief. The court accepts the second amended complaint for the present but directs Schnell to submit documentation concerning any legal guardianship and to file that documentation with a motion to seal. The court also explains the potential consequences of parallel proceedings before the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and permits voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).

Holdings

  1. Although Plaintiff was required to obtain leave of court before filing a second amended complaint and failed to comply with the applicable local rule, the court excused the noncompliance once because Plaintiff was proceeding pro se and treated the second amended complaint as the operative pleading. The court warned that future failures to follow applicable amendment rules would result in the filings being stricken.
  2. The court required Plaintiff to submit documentation concerning any legal guardianship, including court documents and statements from his parents, accompanied by a motion to seal, so the court could determine whether appointment of counsel or another protective measure was necessary and whether Plaintiff could represent himself.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court should accept Plaintiff's second amended complaint despite his failure to obtain leave to amend or comply with the local rule requiring identification of proposed changes.
  2. Whether information concerning Plaintiff's alleged guardianship and competency is necessary before the court can decide how to handle his motion for appointment of counsel and his ability to represent himself.
  3. Whether Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the federal action without prejudice while a related Office for Civil Rights proceeding is pending.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (5)

  • Ryne Schnell v. Party Sealed by Judge Horlacher, Waukesha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Case No. 2026CV000412(cited)
  • Vlasek v. Nemitz, 70 F. App'x 363, 367 (7th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • T.W. by Enk v. Brophy, 124 F.3d 893, 895 (7th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Navin v. Park Ridge Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1147, 1148–49 (7th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…