Cox v. State of Wisconsin
Louis Edward Cox, III v. State of Wisconsin; Trempealeau County; Jackson County; Wojcik, Trooper, in his individual capacity; Unknown Extradition Transport Officers; and John/Jane Does 1–10
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-02144
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Cox v. State of Wisconsin, Judge Provinzino denied Louis Edward Cox III's motions for service of process and limited discovery because he filed an amended complaint after final judgment without first seeking relief from that judgment.
Plaintiffs who have had their complaints dismissed after a preservice review in fee-waiver cases and then attempt to file amended complaints or seek discovery without first asking the court to set aside the final judgment. This ruling clarifies that post-judgment filings require a separate, more demanding procedural step before the court will consider them.
What happened
In Cox v. State of Wisconsin, No. 26-cv-2144, Louis Edward Cox III had his original complaint dismissed without prejudice on July 7, 2026, following a court review required when a plaintiff has been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. Judgment was entered the same day. Less than a week later, Cox filed an amended complaint along with motions asking the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the amended complaint and requesting permission to conduct limited discovery.
The core legal problem is that once a court enters final judgment and closes a case, the ordinary rule allowing parties to freely amend their complaints no longer applies. Instead, a party must first ask the court to set aside the judgment — under a much stricter legal standard — before any amended complaint can be considered. Cox skipped that step entirely: he filed an amended complaint without seeking to vacate the judgment and without asking the court's permission to amend under the required procedure.
Judge Provinzino ruled that because Cox did not follow the proper procedure, the court would take no action on the amended complaint. As a direct result, the motion asking the U.S. Marshals Service to serve that complaint was denied, and the motion to conduct limited discovery was also denied because no live complaint remained before the court. The case remains closed.
The detailed version
- Cox v. State of Wisconsin · No. 0:26-cv-02144
- Laura M. Provinzino
- July 15, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Louis Edward Cox III filed suit in the District of Minnesota against the State of Wisconsin, Trempealeau County, Jackson County, a trooper named Wojcik in his individual capacity, unknown extradition transport officers, and several unnamed defendants. Cox had been permitted to proceed without prepaying filing fees, which triggered a mandatory preservice review of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) — a statutory screening process that allows the court to dismiss complaints that fail to state a viable claim before serving defendants.
On July 7, 2026, the court dismissed Cox's complaint without prejudice following that preservice review, and judgment was entered the same day. On July 13, 2026 — six days after judgment — Cox filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 36), a motion requesting service of the amended complaint by the U.S. Marshals Service (ECF No. 39), and a motion to conduct limited discovery (ECF No. 42).
Legal Framework
The opinion identifies the critical procedural fork: while a case is ongoing, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) permits a party to amend a complaint with the court's leave, and leave should be freely given when justice so requires. However, the Supreme Court's recent decision in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 213 (2025), clarified that Rule 15's liberal amendment policy does not govern once final judgment has been entered and the case is closed, because there is no pending pleading to amend. Under those circumstances, an amendment is only permissible if the judgment is first set aside — a process governed by the more demanding standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which authorizes relief from a final judgment on specific grounds such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other extraordinary reasons. The Eighth Circuit had similarly held in United States v. Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer, 752 F.3d 737, 743 (8th Cir. 2014), that any post-judgment amendment request must be consistent with Rule 60(b)'s stringent standards.
Analysis and Rulings
The court found that Cox had not filed a Rule 60(b) motion to obtain relief from the judgment, nor had he sought leave to amend under any proper procedural vehicle. He simply filed an amended complaint as if the case were still open. Because the threshold procedural step was missing, the court declined to treat the amended complaint as properly before it and took no action on it.
As a consequence:
- Motion for Service of Process by U.S. Marshals Service (ECF No. 39): DENIED. Because the amended complaint was not properly filed, there was nothing to serve. - Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 42): DENIED. With the original complaint dismissed and no operative complaint before the court, Cox had no entitlement to discovery. The court cited Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009), for the proposition that discovery is unavailable where no viable complaint exists.
The order closes with the statement: "This case is closed."
Notes on Scope
The opinion does not address the merits of Cox's underlying claims against any defendant. The dismissal of July 7, 2026 was without prejudice, and this July 15, 2026 order addresses only the procedural misstep of filing post-judgment papers without first seeking to vacate the judgment. The opinion does not indicate whether Cox was represented by counsel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.