Sundsmo, Lester John v. Garrigan, Daniel et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying plaintiff's 3 Motion for a temporary restraining order. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/8/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LESTER JOHN SUNDSMO,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-682-bbc
v.
DANIEL GARRIGAN, a.k.a. d.b.a. DANIEL
GARRIGAN and all Marital Relations,
And
DENNIS GARRIGAN, a.k.a. d.b.a. DENNIS
GARRIGAN and all Marital Relations,
And
JOHN F. ACCARDO, a.k.a. d.b.a. JOHN F.
ACCARDO and all Marital Relations,
d.b.a. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION,
ALAN J. WHITE a.k.a. d.b.a. ALAN
J. WHITE and all Marital Relations,
And
GARY FREYBERG a.k.a. d.b.a. GARY
FREYBERG and all Marital Relations,
And
ROY R. KORTE a.k.a. d.b.a. ROY R.
KORTE and all Marital Relations,
d.b.a. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF WISCONSIN

1

And
JOHN DOES #1, #2, #3, #4,#5
and all Marital Relations,
And
JOHN DOES/JANE DOES etc., #6-200?,
et al. and all Marital Relations,
And
COUNTY OF COLUMBIA
COMMISSIONERS
and all Marital Relations.
a.k.a. d.b.a. COUNTY OF COLUMBIA
INC. In their individual capacity
d.b.a. Carl C. Fredrick Administration Bld.,

Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Lester John Sundsmo brings this action against various state of Wisconsin
law enforcement and judicial officials. Although plaintiff’s complaint is difficult to decipher,
I understand him to be bringing claims for the taking of real estate without proper
compensation, retaliation against him for refusing to relinquish his property, illegal search,
false arrest and malicious prosecution.
Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order against
non-party Sauk County Sheriff’s Department (plaintiff states that Sauk County is a party
but it is not listed as a defendant in the case). Again, this motion is somewhat difficult to
decipher, but I understand plaintiff to be saying that his son was arrested by Sauk County
deputies and is facing false charges as part of a conspiracy by Sauk and Columbia counties

2

against plaintiff’s family in an effort to harass and intimidate plaintiff’s son, a witness in the
case currently before this court.
Granting preliminary injunctive relief “is an exercise of a very far-reaching power,
never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.” Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser
Indus., 749 F.2d 380, 389 (7th Cir. 1984). A district court must consider four factors in
deciding whether a preliminary injunction should be granted: (1) whether the plaintiff has
a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff will have an
adequate remedy at law or will be irreparably harmed if the injunction does not issue; (3)
whether the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm an injunction
may inflict on defendant; and (4) whether the granting of a preliminary injunction will
disserve the public interest. Pelfresne v. Village of Williams Bay, 865 F.2d 877, 882–83 (7th
Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff’s motion and supporting affidavit fall far short of meeting this demanding
standard. He alleges a conspiracy between Columbia and Sauk counties but does not explain
how his son’s criminal proceedings are connected in any way to such a conspiracy. He does
not show how his interests in this lawsuit will be harmed by the criminal proceedings in state
court. To the extent that plaintiff believes that his son’s constitutional rights have been
violated, those claims will have to be raised in the state court proceedings themselves or in
a separate civil lawsuit. And, unless plaintiff’s son is a minor, such a suit would have to be
brought by plaintiff’s son.

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Lester John Sundsmo’s motion for a temporary
restraining order, dkt. #3, is DENIED.
Entered this 8th day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4