Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SUNDSMO v. GARRIGAN, 13-cv-682-jdp. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin Number: infdco20150615a94 Visitors: 41
Filed: Jun. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES D. PETERSON , District Judge . 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 orde
More

ORDER

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 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.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer