Sundsmo, Lester John v. Garrigan, Daniel et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 73 , 77 Motions for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/2/2015. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

LESTER JOHN SUNDSMO,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL GARRIGAN, a.k.a. d.b.a. DANIEL
GARRIGAN and all Marital Relations,
And
DENNIS RICHARDS, a.k.a. d.b.a. DENNIS
RICHARDS 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,
And
JOHN DOES #1, #2, #3, #4,#5
and all Marital Relations,
And

13-cv-682-jdp

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 brought this action against various Columbia County and
state of Wisconsin officials. In an April 15, 2015 order, I dismissed the case for plaintiff’s failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, following plaintiff’s several attempts at
submitting allegations understandable enough to give defendants fair notice of the claims
against them. Dkt. 71.
Plaintiff has filed two responses to the April 15 order. First, he filed a document titled as
an “objection” to the order dismissing the case, arguing that I could not dismiss the case because
I was named as a defendant, and that defendants improperly filed responses to his complaints
signed only by their attorneys. Dkt. 73. Neither of these arguments have any merit. As I stated
in the April 15 order, plaintiff failed to show a reasonable ground for my recusal. In particular, I
noted that “nothing in the proposed second amended complaint would lead a reasonable,
informed observer to think that I am biased against plaintiff or that plaintiff has any viable
claims against me in this lawsuit.” Dkt. 71, at 6. I also concluded that plaintiff’s argument about
defendants’ attorneys signing their filings was frivolous. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff’s second response is titled as a motion to reopen the case based on new
evidence, but plaintiff does not actually present any new evidence. Dkt. 77. He instead

2

reiterates the same frivolous arguments I have already rejected. Nothing in either response
persuades me that I was incorrect in dismissing the case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that
both of plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the April 15, 2015 order are DENIED and this
case remains closed.
Entered June 2, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3