Moseby v. Smith et al
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 10/23/2017 DENYING 40 Michael A. Alexander's Motion to Amend/Correct Opinion. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Michael Alexander at Columbia Correctional Institution) (cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
CHAZ LAVER MOSEBY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-1096-pp
v.
JUDY SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MICHAEL A. ALEXANDER’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE OPINION (DKT. NO. 40)
______________________________________________________________________________
On September 6, 2017, the court granted the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the case. Dkt. No. 38. In its decision, the
court made reference to the plaintiff’s allegation that, in 2007, he was involved
in a physical altercation with inmate Michael A. Alexander; this allegation was
part of the background the plaintiff cited for his claim about an incident that
some of the defendants failed to protect him from in 2013. On September 15,
2017, inmate Alexander (who is not a party in the case) filed a motion, asking
the court to strike his full name from the opinion and replace it with his
initials. Dkt. No. 40. He asserts that the allegations about him are false, very
inflammatory and extremely degrading. Id. at 1. He expresses concern that
mention of his name in connection with a fight will adversely affect his pending
criminal appeal and civil case. Id. at 2. He worries that the plaintiff’s
1
allegations cast him in a negative light, which he indicates could cause him
harm in his pending cases. Id.
In the Seventh Circuit—the federal judicial circuit in which this court is
located—there is a presumption of public access to the court docket, because
the public pays for the courts and has an interest in what goes on at all stages
of a judicial proceeding. Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d
943, 945 (7th Cir.1999). Although some circuits have been willing to seal the
personal information of non-parties who are detached from or only tangentially
involved with the litigation, see, e.g., In re Knoxville News–Sentinel Company,
Inc., 723 F.2d 470 (6th Cir.1983) (sealing personal financial information of
banking customers who were only tangentially related to the lawsuits and who
had not put their financial information at issue), the Seventh Circuit has not.
Naji v. Meissner, 1996 WL 596410, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 1996) (concluding
that documents that are the basis of a decision and order are available for
public inspection.) For this reason, the court will deny inmate Alexander’s
motion to amend the opinion.
The court notes that its decision and order granting summary judgment
did not draw any conclusions or express any opinion about whether the
plaintiff’s allegations about inmate Alexander were true. In fact, the court noted
in the decision that the plaintiff and inmate Alexander had no issues at
Columbia Correctional Institution, and noted that the plaintiff had presented
no evidence of any specific threats to his safety from the other inmate he
named, inmate Benson. Dkt. No. 38 at 14-15. The allegations the plaintiff
2
made in his complaint are just that—allegations—and that is how the court
treated them.
The court DENIES Michael A. Alexander’s motion to amend the opinion.
Dkt. No. 40.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 23rd day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge
3
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?