Hoffmann, Steven v. Boley, Brett et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
STEVEN JAMES HOFFMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT WADE SCHLICHTING, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-541-jdp
Plaintiff Steven James Hoffmann, a state prisoner representing himself, is proceeding
against defendants on Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. 	Dkt. 7. 	Relevant here,
defendant Officer Anthony Briski works for the Eau Claire Police Department and executed a
waiver of service on July 31, 2025. 	Dkt. 65. 	By doing so, it was not necessary to formally
serve Briski, and Briski received additional time to answer, until September 29, 2025. 	But
Briski did not file an answer until November 26, 2025. Dkt. 91.
This order addresses plaintiff’s request for entry of default and default judgment against
Briski, Dkt. 82 & Dkt. 85, and Briski’s motion for an extension of time to file his answer,
Dkt. 87. For the following reasons, the court will DENY plaintiff’s motions, GRANT Briski’s
motion, and accept Briski’s answer at Dkt. 91.
ANALYSIS
A defendant who does not answer or respond to the complaint on time and has not
appeared in the case may be in default. A plaintiff may ask for judgment in their favor based
on this default by completing two steps: (1) ask the clerk of court to enter default against the
Case: 3:24-cv-00541-jdp Document #: 95 Filed: 12/05/25 Page 1 of 4

2
defendant and, if the request is granted, then (2) ask the court for a default judgment. 	See
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and (b).
Plaintiff has completed both steps, noting when he filed his motions for entry of default
and for default judgment on November 24, 2025, that Briski had not responded to the
complaint. The next day, defense counsel for Briski filed notice with the court of his retention
and Briski’s intention to file a motion to extend time to file an answer as well as a response to
plaintiff’s motions for default. Dkt. 86. Briski quickly did so, filing an extension motion and
supporting materials and his answer on November 26, 2025, and his response to the motions
for default on December 1, 2025.
Briski attests that when he executed the waiver of service on July 31, 2025, he believed
that the Eau Claire Police Department had received a copy of the summons and complaint.
Dkt. 88, ¶ 3. He further explains that when he executed the waiver, he believed he was doing
so at the behest of retained counsel who would file an answer on his behalf, and thus he took
no further steps. Id. at ¶ 4. Briski attests that he now understands that he had been contacted
by someone with the U.S. Marshals Service attempting to serve him, not by his legal
representation. Id.
A representative of the City of Eau Claire corroborates Briski’s version of events.
Jasmine Dutton attests that the U.S. Marshals Service contacted the City in June 2025 about
serving a copy of the summons and complaint in this case and were directed to serve the front
desk at the police department. 	Dkt. 89, ¶ 2. 	But formal service on the City never occurred
because Briski accepted service himself. Id., ¶ 3. And the City understood that the municipality
Briski had been assisting during the incident underlying this lawsuit would provide Briski’s
Case: 3:24-cv-00541-jdp Document #: 95 Filed: 12/05/25 Page 2 of 4

3
defense, so it contacted that municipality’s preferred counsel only to later learn that the other
municipality had in fact engaged different counsel. Id., ¶ 4.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the court may, for good cause, extend
the time “on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of
excusable neglect.” A finding of excusable neglect “is not limited to situations where the failure
to timely file is due to circumstances beyond the control of the filer,” but extends to some cases
in which the delay is “caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co.
v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993).
Briski’s nearly two-month delay in answering the complaint is the result of layers of
misunderstanding and miscommunication—inadvertence and mistake that will not cause
plaintiff to suffer any prejudice and thus constitute excusable neglect. The court only recently
set the case schedule, and Briski states that he will not object to any of the deadlines or seek
rescheduling. Dkt. 90 at 4. The court prefers to decide cases on the merits when it can. Atkins
v. Gilbert, 52 F.4th 359, 361 (7th Cir. 2022). 	Because the delay was the result of Briski’s
mistaken 	but 	reasonable 	belief 	that 	his 	employer 	would 	provide 	an 	attorney 	and
miscommunication between municipalities about that representation, and because plaintiff will
not be prejudiced, the court will accept Briski’s answer as timely filed.
Case: 3:24-cv-00541-jdp Document #: 95 Filed: 12/05/25 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Steven James Hoffmann’s motion for entry of default, Dkt. 82, and motion
for default judgment, Dkt. 85, are DENIED.
2. 	Defendant Anthony Briski’s motion for extension of time to file answer, Dkt. 87, is
GRANTED and Briski’s answer, Dkt. 91, is accepted as timely filed.
Entered December 5, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00541-jdp Document #: 95 Filed: 12/05/25 Page 4 of 4