KENOSHA, Wis. — Disgraced former Kenosha County Sheriff’s Deputy and former Kenosha Police Officer Michael Angelo Rizzo has lost his second defamation lawsuit against Kenosha County Eye and its publisher, Kevin Mathewson. Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge David Wilk dismissed Rizzo’s latest lawsuit Thursday morning, October 22, 2026, marking the second time in just over seven months that Rizzo has appeared before the same judge seeking to challenge KCE’s investigative reporting and “walked out of a courtroom” without the relief he wanted. Thursday’s hearing was conducted remotely via Zoom.
The lawsuit, filed March 30, 2026, in Kenosha County Circuit Court Case No. 2026CV000378, was Rizzo’s second attempt to persuade a judge to declare portions of KCE’s reporting about his law enforcement career, dishonesty, criminal history, and domestic violence restraining orders inaccurate. His first defamation lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Wilk on March 13, 2026, but rather than accept that defeat, Rizzo filed another lawsuit just 17 days later. Kenosha County Eye now expects Rizzo to file a third defamation lawsuit.
During Thursday morning’s proceedings, Wilk also made comments that Mathewson interpreted as suggesting Rizzo was unnecessarily consuming the court’s time with his repeated litigation. The second lawsuit was accompanied by more than 300 pages of pleadings and exhibits, including material Rizzo acknowledged preparing with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Like the first case, it sought to have a judge second-guess the wording and characterization of KCE’s published reporting.
Perhaps most unusually, Rizzo has repeatedly indicated that he is not seeking financial compensation. Instead, he wants a judge to effectively rewrite portions of Kenosha County Eye’s investigative articles to conform to his preferred version of events. Mathewson says he is unaware of any case in American judicial history in which a judge has agreed to rewrite a newspaper’s accurate reporting simply because the subject of the reporting disliked how he was portrayed.
KCE Publisher Blasts Rizzo As “Obnoxious Vexatious Pro Se Litigant”
“This guy is an absolute maniac. He reminds me of some people in Kenosha that don’t know when to quit,” Mathewson said Thursday following the dismissal. “He did the same thing in Arizona to a woman he terrorized. She got a restraining order against him, and he appealed it from municipal court to district court, from district court to the Court of Appeals, and from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, and he lost all the way. He took it to the end.”
“He is an obnoxious vexatious pro se litigant,” Mathewson continued. “This guy is wasting the court’s time. This guy is wasting my time, and this guy is wasting his own time and money. But when he sues me for the third time, I’m going to seek sanctions. Because eventually, when does it stop? How many times am I going to be dragged into court for defamation and have the case dismissed?”
A vexatious litigant is someone who repeatedly files lawsuits or engages in legal proceedings that are frivolous, duplicative, harassing, or designed to burden opponents rather than resolve legitimate legal disputes. A pro se litigant is someone who represents himself in court without an attorney.
Arizona Judge Found Rizzo’s Former Fiancée More Credible — New Criminal Investigation Reported
Rizzo’s repeated courtroom defeats have not been limited to Wisconsin. In Arizona, his former fiancée obtained a domestic violence order of protection against him following allegations of harassment, intimidation, unwanted contact, and other troubling conduct.
During a contested hearing on December 19, 2025, an Arizona judge heard conflicting accounts from Rizzo and the woman, who was identified by a pseudonym in KCE’s reporting. The judge ultimately found the woman more credible and upheld the restraining order.
The judge specifically discussed credibility when weighing the competing accounts and evidence, which included disputes involving anonymous communications. The judge told Rizzo that the petitioner had met her burden based on the court’s credibility assessment, leaving the order of protection in effect.
Now, Kenosha County Eye has been told that Rizzo is once again under criminal investigation in Arizona for suspected additional violations of the domestic violence restraining order. According to information provided to KCE, Rizzo is suspected of sending the protected woman anonymous emails that are nearly identical to certain anonymous emails sent to Kenosha County Eye.
The reported similarities have raised further questions about whether the communications originated from the same individual. KCE has not independently confirmed the status or findings of the reported new investigation, and the allegation concerning the anonymous emails has not resulted in a criminal conviction.
The allegations are particularly significant given Rizzo’s history of violating an earlier Arizona restraining order. During an internal investigation by the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office, Rizzo acknowledged sending a birthday card and making telephone contact with the woman despite restrictions on contacting her. Investigators also concluded that Rizzo was dishonest during portions of their investigation, findings that contributed to his resignation in lieu of termination.
Rizzo previously signed a guilty plea agreement involving interference with judicial proceedings in Arizona. The criminal case was subsequently dismissed after he completed a domestic abuse diversion program, but the underlying plea agreement and court records remain part of the documented history that KCE has reported.
A Troubling Law Enforcement History And A Dream Of Becoming A Cop Again
Rizzo’s legal troubles and repeated efforts to challenge official records stem from a history that Kenosha County Eye first examined in a March 19, 2025, investigative report. That reporting detailed disciplinary problems, dishonesty findings, an Arizona domestic violence restraining order, and Rizzo’s departure from the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office after internal investigators concluded he had violated a court order and lied during an investigation.
Rizzo resigned in lieu of termination, a designation reflected in Wisconsin’s statewide law enforcement personnel records. He has continued trying to challenge aspects of those records, including contacting law enforcement officials about changing information he believes is inaccurate.
Rizzo has also unsuccessfully sought to seal his Arizona criminal case record, with an Arizona judge citing public-interest considerations related to his former law enforcement employment and his desire to return to the profession.
Rizzo’s active domestic violence order of protection presents another major obstacle. During the December 2025 hearing, the Arizona judge stated that federal Brady firearm restrictions applied to Rizzo. Those restrictions prohibit firearm possession while the qualifying order remains in effect, making a return to armed law enforcement especially problematic.
“The guy obviously has serious issues, talking about blowing his brains out,” Mathewson said, referring to statements attributed to Rizzo in his former fiancée’s protective-order petition. “He wants to be a cop again, but he never will be because he’s got a criminal arrest record. He’s got a domestic violence restraining order, which Brady applies, meaning he can’t carry a gun. But he thinks that if he sues me and wins, he will somehow be able to be a police officer again. It’s just not the case.”
“He will never be a police officer ever again. If you’re reading this, Mike, you will never be a cop again. You’re destined to be a server for the rest of your life, and that’s not an ignoble job. It’s a great job, but people that are unstable like you should never be a police officer anywhere.”
Mathewson said that even if Rizzo somehow persuaded a court to criticize or order changes to an article, such a victory would not erase the official findings made during his law enforcement career, his resignation in lieu of termination, or the Arizona court proceedings. Those records exist independently of anything published by Kenosha County Eye.
Publisher Says He Tried To Resolve Minor Disputes Without Litigation
Mathewson said what makes Rizzo’s repeated lawsuits particularly frustrating is that he has attempted to resolve minor disagreements with Rizzo outside the courtroom, but those attempts have gone unanswered.
“Rizzo has made this personal now because I’ve tried to email him several times, offering to change very, very minor details that he thinks I got off by such a small margin, just to avoid having to show up to court many times per case, and he won’t respond anymore,” Mathewson said. “The fact that he doesn’t want to take me up on my offer and instead he wants to sue just shows you how arrogant this guy is.”
Mathewson said his willingness to consider small factual corrections should not be confused with an admission that the underlying investigative reporting was false. He maintains that the central facts regarding Rizzo’s misconduct, court proceedings, and law enforcement employment history are supported by official records.
Third Defamation Lawsuit Expected — Sanctions Could Follow
Although Rizzo’s second defamation lawsuit has now been dismissed, Mathewson does not believe the litigation is over. Kenosha County Eye expects another defamation lawsuit from Rizzo, despite two previous dismissals before the same judge.
Mathewson said he has no intention of changing accurate reporting merely because Rizzo continues to file lawsuits. If a third lawsuit materializes, he intends to ask the court to consider sanctions under Wisconsin law for frivolous or abusive litigation.
Wisconsin Statute § 802.05 permits courts to impose sanctions under certain circumstances when filings are submitted for improper purposes, lack adequate legal support, or contain unsupported factual contentions. Sanctions are not automatic, and any request would be subject to the applicable procedural requirements and a judge’s determination.
“How many times is this guy going to sue me over the same reporting and lose before somebody finally tells him enough is enough?” Mathewson said. “He can keep filing lawsuits, but he cannot change what happened when he was a police officer or a sheriff’s deputy. He cannot erase the internal investigation, he cannot erase the court records, and he cannot sue his way back into a police uniform.”
For now, Rizzo has lost two defamation lawsuits against Kenosha County Eye before the same judge. Whether he files a third remains to be seen, but Mathewson says the publication will continue reporting on matters of public interest regardless of how many times Rizzo attempts to challenge that reporting in court.
