Cox v. State of Wisconsin

Background

Plaintiff Louis Edward Cox III brought a civil action in the District of Minnesota against the State of Wisconsin, Trempealeau County, Jackson County, a trooper identified as Wojcik, unknown extradition transport officers, and a group of unnamed defendants. The complaint was subject to a preservice review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires courts to screen complaints filed by plaintiffs who are proceeding without prepaying filing fees. On July 7, 2026, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice — meaning Cox was not barred from refiling. Judgment was entered the same day.

Procedural History

On July 13, 2026, Cox filed an amended complaint. The court rejected it on July 15, 2026, because Cox had not taken the required preliminary step of seeking relief from the judgment already entered against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (which governs motions to reopen final judgments), nor had he sought the court's permission to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). The following day, Cox filed the Rule 60(b) motion at issue in this order.

Legal Standard: Rule 60(b)

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to relieve a party from a final judgment in enumerated circumstances, including mistake, excusable neglect, fraud, and void judgments. A catchall provision also allows relief for "any other reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The Eighth Circuit has characterized Rule 60(b) relief as "extraordinary" and requiring "an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances." Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2005). Additionally, the Supreme Court has clarified that a court cannot consider whether to allow a plaintiff to amend a complaint unless the judgment is first set aside under Rule 60(b). BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 213 (2025).

Cox's Argument

Cox argued he was entitled to relief from the judgment because he experienced a "neurological and psychiatric breakdown" that "completely disrupted [his] capacity to draft structured legal pleadings." He asserted that a self-represented (pro se) litigant with an unmitigated mental impairment preventing them from understanding court rules or filing coherently in a timely manner is entitled to equitable intervention.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Judge Provinzino denied the motion on two grounds. First, Cox submitted no evidence of any mental impairment. Second — and independently — the court held that even assuming Cox suffered from a mental condition that impaired his ability to competently litigate in federal court, that would not constitute "exceptional circumstances" justifying Rule 60(b) relief on this record. The court cited Clayborne v. Frakes, 326 F.R.D. 532, 535 (D. Neb. 2018), and Lam v. Finn, No. 1:19-CV-111 JAR, 2022 WL 4355328 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2022), both of which held that mental impairment does not satisfy the high standard for Rule 60(b) extraordinary relief.

The court also rejected Cox's suggestion that mental status might excuse non-compliance with court rules. Citing Eighth Circuit precedent, the court held that all pro se litigants must comply with both substantive and procedural law, Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984), and that it is each litigant's responsibility to understand and follow those rules, Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2005).

Because the court denied Rule 60(b) relief, it did not separately address whether Cox should be permitted to amend his complaint — since, under controlling Supreme Court authority, amendment is unavailable unless the judgment is first vacated.

Disposition

Cox's Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief From the Judgment (ECF No. 48) was DENIED.