Andrew R. Wiseman
How Judge Wiseman rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wiseman
Andrew R. Wiseman serves as a part-time United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin and as the court's Chief Deputy Clerk. In June 2022, the court named him its selectee for the part-time magistrate judgeship in Madison. The court's current judicial roster lists him as a magistrate judge.
Judge Wiseman's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Wiseman's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- In Re: Standing Order Governing the Use and Submission of Electronic Evidence (Administrative Order 434) ↗
- In Re: Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents (Administrative Order 453) ↗
- Amended General Rules for Filing Documents Under Seal (Administrative Order 460) ↗
How Judge Wiseman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Famous v. Delforge, Wiseman found the prisoner indigent and assessed a $14.49 initial partial filing fee. He denied the request to use release account funds for the full fee because federal courts could authorize those funds for an initial partial payment, but could not direct state officials to release the balance.
“with the exception of initial partial payments, federal courts lack the authority to tell state officials whether and to what extent a prisoner should be able to withdraw money from a release account.”
In Vaughn v. State of Wisconsin, Wiseman reviewed an updated prisoner account statement, found the plaintiff had no present means to make the initial partial payment, and granted a request to waive it. He kept the plaintiff responsible for the full filing fee when funds became available.
“Plaintiff’s request to waive the initial partial filing fee is GRANTED. However, plaintiff remains responsible for paying the entire $350 filing fee for this case when funds exist.”
Procedural preferences
In Glick v. Kree, Wiseman construed the prisoner's letter as a motion to waive the initial partial filing payment. After reviewing the account statement and the information in the motion, he found Glick had no present means to pay and granted the request.
“Now plaintiff has filed a letter in the case that I construe as a motion to waive the initial partial payments.”
In Hunley v. Parr, he denied a request to waive the initial partial filing fee without prejudice after calculating a $1.90 payment, and invited the plaintiff to submit an updated account statement if his circumstances had changed.
“Plaintiff Johnny Ray Hunley, Jr.’s motion to waive the initial partial filing fee is DENIED without prejudice.”
Cautions
In Wells v. Winker, he denied a request to waive the initial partial filing fee despite finding the plaintiff indigent, because the statute required a partial payment and the account showed near-weekly deposits of $20 to $100.
“I will deny his motion to waive prepayment of the filing fee because an initial partial payment is required by statute, and because plaintiff evidently has the means, based on near-weekly deposits into his account in amounts ranging from $20 to $100.”
In Jones v. Brown, he denied leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee after finding that the account statement did not establish indigency, and ordered payment of the full $405 by February 6, 2026.
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Melvin Jones’s petition for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee is DENIED. Plaintiff must pay the $405 fee no later than February 6, 2026.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
A routine assessment order computing the statutory share of the filing fee from the inmate account statement.
“Plaintiff’s motion for use of release account funds to pay the entire filing fee in this case (Dkt. #4) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Gormidou Y. Lavela’s petition for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff Ronnie Famous’s motion for use of release account funds to pay the entire filing fee in this case (Dkt. #3) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Paul Negron’s motion for use of release account funds to pay the entire filing fee in this case is DENIED.”
A threshold order requiring the six-month account statement that the statute makes a precondition to evaluating a request to proceed without prepayment.
He calculated the statutory initial partial payment and held all further action until it was paid and the complaint screened.
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Christopher Blair Vine’s motion for an order directing prison officials to pay the remainder of the filing fee for this case from plaintiff’s release account is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Johnny Ray Hunley, Jr.’s motion to waive the initial partial filing fee is DENIED without prejudice.”
He found the litigant qualified for indigent status, calculated the statutory initial partial payment from the trust fund account statement, and stayed further action until that payment arrived and screening was complete.
“The motion filed by plaintiff Yousef Gilali for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee is GRANTED.”
Because the fee was paid in full, the only remaining step was the statutory screening of a prisoner complaint.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 5 days (N = 1).
The reviewed orders describe filing-fee administration for self-represented and incarcerated litigants across civil rights, prisoner, immigration habeas, and state habeas matters. They do not establish the distribution of any caseload assigned to him, because none is.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, not for Judge Wiseman: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 545 | 6.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 188 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 169 | 6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 174 | 13.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 26.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 545 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 526 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 614 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 633 | 10 months |
| Sep 2021 | 675 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 707 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 657 | 7.8 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Wiseman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wiseman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wiseman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace