Schulte v. United States of America
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-04042
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Schulte v. United States, Judge Furman extended amendment deadlines, directed consolidation, and denied Schulte’s counsel request without prejudice.
Joshua Adam Schulte and the defendants in the related cases consolidated under 21-CV-4042. The order set deadlines for Schulte and the defendant and denied Schulte’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
What happened
In Schulte v. United States of America, the United States had filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Because Joshua Adam Schulte was representing himself, the court gave him additional time to amend his complaint.
The court ordered Schulte to file one consolidated amended complaint covering all cases consolidated under 21-CV-4042 by March 17, 2022. If he did not amend, he had to oppose the motion by that date. The court also asked him to identify any specific New York law materials he could not access and why he needed them.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Schulte’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, allowing him to renew it later if a potentially meritorious claim could be shown. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
The detailed version
- Schulte v. United States of America · No. 1:21-cv-04042
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
The United States filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on February 3, 2022. The opinion identifies multiple related cases, and the court stated that they had been consolidated under 21-CV-4042. Joshua Adam Schulte was proceeding without a lawyer.
Schulte had also sent a January 19, 2022 letter requesting either access to New York State law materials or appointment of counsel. The court understood that he had regular access to a law library but said it was unclear what additional materials he sought.
Court’s orders
The court explained that Rule 15(a)(1)(B) ordinarily gives a plaintiff 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion to amend once as a matter of course. Because Schulte was representing himself, the court gave him additional time. It ordered him to file any amended complaint by March 17, 2022, and directed him to file a single consolidated amended complaint addressing the allegations in all cases consolidated under 21-CV-4042. The court stated that Schulte would not receive another opportunity to amend to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss.
If Schulte amended the complaint, the defendant had three weeks after the amended complaint was filed to answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state by letter that it relied on the existing motion. If the defendant filed an answer or a new motion to dismiss, the court would deny the earlier motion as moot. If Schulte did not amend, he had to serve any opposition to the motion to dismiss by March 17, 2022, and the defendant could reply by March 31, 2022. Either party could request an extension by showing diligence and a good reason.
The court also instructed Schulte to promptly identify any specific New York law materials he could not access and the legal basis for his request. It denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice because a more developed record was needed to determine whether his claims had enough potential merit to justify appointment of counsel. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.