Dunn v. Nelnet et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTINA LEAS DUNN PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO. 5:25-CV-5107
NELNET DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Christina Dunn’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment (Doc. 69), Defendant Nelnet’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 70), and Ms.
Dunn’s Reply (Doc. 71). Ms. Dunn asks the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e), to set aside its Judgment (Doc. 67) dismissing her case without
prejudice for failure to state a claim and to grant her leave to file an amended complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). She contends that the Court erred in its
Order (Doc. 66) granting Nelnet’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) by failing to address her
Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against Nelnet.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a litigant to seek alteration or
amendment of a judgment within 28 days after its entry. “Rule 59 motions are disfavored
and ‘serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or presenting
newly discovered evidence.’” Tukaye v. Troup, 157 F.4th 958, 962 (8th Cir. 2025) (citation
modified). “Rule 59(e) was adopted as a mechanism for the district court to correct its
own mistakes shortly after entering judgment.” Nordgren v. Hennepin Cnty., 96 F.4th
1072, 1077 (8th Cir. 2024) (citing Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 508 (2020)).
Postjudgment motions for leave to amend are similarly disfavored. “District courts
in this circuit have considerable discretion to deny” such motions as the “interests of
Case 5:25-cv-05107-TLB Document 72 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
finality dictate that leave to amend should be less freely available after a final order has
been entered.” Par v. Wolfe Clinic, P.C., 70 F.4th 441, 449 (8th Cir. 2023) (citation
modified). “After judgment has been entered, district courts may not ignore the
considerations of Rule 15, but leave to amend a pleading will be granted only if it is
consistent with the stringent standards governing the grant of Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)
relief.’” In re SuperValu, Inc., 925 F.3d 955, 961 (8th Cir. 2019) (citation modified). “Even
if a dismissal is without prejudice, if the court intended the decision to be a final,
appealable order, it constitutes dismissal of the entire action, and the more stringent
postjudgment standards apply.” Id. (citation omitted).
Here, Ms. Dunn argues that the Court committed manifest error when it dismissed
her case against Nelnet without prejudice, because the Court’s Order (Doc. 66) “did not
analyze [her] claims arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (‘FCRA’), despite the
complaint alleging credit reporting disputes, reinsertion of deleted tradelines, verification
of disputed information, inconsistent reporting among consumer reporting agencies, and
resulting credit harm.” (Doc. 69, pp. 1–2). The Court previously dismissed the FCRA
claims against all other defendants. See Doc. 57, pp. 4–5. And the FCRA portion (Count
II) of Ms. Dunn’s Complaint (Doc. 2) does not assert that Nelnet violated the FCRA. It
states that only “Defendants TransUnion, Experian, Equifax, and LexisNexis failed to
comply with their obligations under the FCRA, despite Plaintiff’s repeated disputes and
formal notifications of Nelnet’s unlawful reporting.” Id. ¶ 43. The Complaint does not state
that Nelnet acted in violation of the FCRA by, for example, failing to conduct the
investigation required of furnishers under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), although it does cite
that provision without referencing any particular defendant. Id. ¶ 50.
Case 5:25-cv-05107-TLB Document 72 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint “contain . . . a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” “in
order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation modified). Ms.
Dunn’s Complaint did not provide fair notice to Nelnet that she was accusing it of violating
the FCRA.
Even if the Complaint had stated that Nelnet violated the FCRA, it contains no facts
supporting such an allegation. While the Court construes Ms. Dunn’s Complaint liberally,
it will not “construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not be
pleaded.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d
1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989)).
Further, even if the Court did attempt to construct such a theory, it would no doubt
rely on Ms. Dunn’s incorrect conclusions about the status of her student loan debt. Ms.
Dunn initially filed this lawsuit based on the mistaken belief that her 2013 bankruptcy
case—which she voluntarily dismissed before any debt was discharged—somehow
voided her student loans. The Court rejected this theory. See Doc. 66, pp. 4–5. In her
Reply regarding the instant Motion, Ms. Dunn claims that she “does not challenge the
Court’s legal conclusions regarding bankruptcy law, and does not attempt to revive any
theory previously rejected by the Court.” (Doc. 71, p. 1). However, she bases her claim
for an altered or amended judgment on Nelnet and the credit reporting agencies’ handling
of the disputed Nelnet tradelines, the tradelines representing Ms. Dunn’s outstanding
student loan debt. (Doc. 69, p. 3–5). Her proposed claims thus rest on the rejected theory
that she disclaims. (Doc. 69-1). The Court did not manifestly err in failing to expressly
Case 5:25-cv-05107-TLB Document 72 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
address claims which were not pled, and Ms. Dunn is not entitled to amend her complaint
after judgment to assert “new” but equally meritless claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Ms. Dunn’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment (Doc. 69) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 30th day of April, 2026.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05107-TLB Document 72 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>