govinfo:USCOURTS-insd-1_23-cv-01601-2

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 
 
 ) 
WELBY THOMAS COX, JR. ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) No. 1:23-cv-01601-JPH-MJD 
 ) 
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al. ) 
 ) 
Defendants. ) 
 
ORDER 
 
 In March 2026, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary 
judgment on Welby Cox's Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the 
Department of Justice's efforts to collect his restitution debt. Dkt. 78; see dkt. 
79 (final judgment). Mr. Cox has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment 
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Dkt. 80. He argues that he was 
not notified of the deadline to response to the Department of Justice's motion 
for summary judgment and that the Court failed to adhere to the Seventh 
Circuit's mandate previously issued in this case. Id. The Department of 
Justice responds that the Court committed no error. Dkt. 81. 
 "Relief under Rule 59(e) is generally reserved for extraordinary cases." 
Reilly v. Will Co. Sheriff's Off., 142 F.4th 924, 929 (7th Cir. 2025). "A Rule 59(e) 
motion can be granted only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the 
court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered 
evidence precluded entry of judgment." Barrington Music Prods., Inc. v. Music & PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
Arts Ctr., 924 F.3d 966, 968 (7th Cir. 2019). "Rule 59(e) does not provide a 
vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not 
allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and 
should have been presented to the district court prior to judgment." Id. 
 Here, Mr. Cox argues that he was not informed of the summary judgment 
briefing schedule or the opportunity to respond to the Department of Justice's 
motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 80 at 1. That deadline, however, was set 
by Court order, dkt. 44, and even if it had not been, Mr. Cox could have 
calculated the deadline under Local Rule 56-1, which requires a response brief 
"within 28 days after the movant serves" its summary judgment motion. 
 Mr. Cox next contends that the Court misstated the year that he was 
sentenced and did not recognize some of his prior communications with the 
Department of Justice. Dkt. 80 at 1–1. But the Court correctly identified the 
date of Mr. Cox's amended judgment, and none of the alleged facts that Mr. 
Cox identifies are relevant to the issues resolved in the summary judgment 
order. See dkt. 78; Barrington Music Prods., 924 F.3d at 968. 
Finally, Mr. Cox argues that the Court's summary judgment order failed 
to adhere to the Seventh Circuit's mandate in his earlier appeal in this case by 
granting summary judgment "on a perceived procedural default" rather than on 
the merits. Dkt. 80 at 2. The Department of Justice was entitled to summary 
judgment in this case because it provided the notice required by the Treasury 
Offset Program. Dkt. 78 at 3–6. While the Court held that Mr. Cox waived any 
challenge to the notice's sufficiency under 31 U.S.C. § 3716, id. at 4, nothing in PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
the Seventh Circuit's prior mandate prevented the application of ordinary 
waiver principles, dkt. 40 (remanding for adjudication of Mr. Cox's APA claim 
and finding other arguments waived). 
 Mr. Cox's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment is therefore 
DENIED. Dkt. [80]. 
 Mr. Cox has also filed a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 
Dkt. [83]; see dkt. 84. That motion is GRANTED. See Thomas v. Zatecky, 712 
F.3d 1004, 1005 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[T]he possibility of litigating in forma 
pauperis—applies to 'any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal 
therein.'"). While in forma pauperis status allows Mr. Cox to proceed without 
prepayment of fees, he remains liable for the fees. See Rosas v. Roman Catholic 
Archdiocese of Chicago, 748 F. App'x 64, 65 (7th Cir. 2019) ("Under 28 U.S.C. § 
1915(a), a district court may allow a litigant to proceed 'without prepayment of 
fees,' . . . but not without ever paying fees."). 
SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Distribution: 
 
WELBY THOMAS COX, JR. 
415 NW 9th St. 
Richmond, IN 47374 
 
All electronically registered counsel 
Date: 5/27/2026 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight