Riker v. Carlson et al
Filing
49
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 9/3/15 denying 48 Motion to Redact Wrongful Quotes in Order on Summary Judgment by Sean A Riker. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SEAN A. RIKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 10-CV-906
SHERIFF ROBERT CARLSON, et al.,
Defendant,
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 24, 2015, the court received a motion asking the court to redact what
plaintiff describes as “wrongful quotes” in the Order granting defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. That Order was entered over three years ago, on July 13, 2015, by
United States Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein. Judge Goodstein is no long actively
managing cases so the case was randomly reassigned to me.
Plaintiff disputes a number of the statements and quotations set forth in the court’s
Order on the motions for summary judgment. He suggests that they were written as fact
without any proof and that the implication that he is a racist causes people to decide not
to help him prove his innocence; he claims that he is serving a life sentence for crimes he
did not commit.
My review of Judge Goodstein’s Order as well as the documents defendants
submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment, reveals that each of the factual
assertions in the Order was supported by evidence in the record. Plaintiff had an
opportunity to dispute the proposed findings of fact when defendants filed their motion. He
did not. He submitted only a two-page, unsworn response to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff
cannot now relitigate that motion.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to redact statements in Judge
Goodstein’s order (Docket #48) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 3rd day of September, 2015.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?