Bierbrauer v. Zahn

Background

Brandon Bierbrauer, who was incarcerated at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater and proceeded without a lawyer, sued Dennis Zahn under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Bierbrauer alleged that a canine unit handled by Zahn, a canine correctional officer, attacked him on May 3, 2024, causing permanent scars, nerve damage, and continuing mental distress.

After the court completed its required preliminary review of Bierbrauer’s complaint, service was directed on Zahn. A notice requesting waiver of service was delivered to Zahn on January 8, 2025. Zahn later signed the waiver, and the court directed him to answer or file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 by March 10, 2025. Zahn did not meet that deadline. Bierbraier filed an application for entry of default and moved for default judgment, but the clerk never entered default.

On March 14, 2025, the court extended Zahn’s time to respond and directed him to seek an extension or otherwise respond by March 28. Zahn did neither by that date. On April 2, 2025, through counsel, Zahn requested a retroactive extension under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). He said he was unfamiliar with the process because he had not previously been sued by an incarcerated person during his nearly twenty-five years of employment with the Minnesota Department of Corrections. He also said he did not regularly check mail, received the March 14 order on April 1, and promptly notified the Department of Corrections’ legal office and obtained counsel.

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the extension based on the preference for deciding cases on their merits and a finding of excusable neglect. The new deadline was April 22, 2025, and Zahn filed his answer on that date. Bierbrauer objected to the magistrate judge’s order and asked the district court to consider his motion for default judgment.

Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge must set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive matter only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The district court described this as an extremely deferential standard. A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made, and it is contrary to law when the court failed to apply or misapplied the relevant law or procedural rules.

Extension of Time

Rule 6(b) permits a court to extend a deadline after it has expired when the party’s failure to act resulted from excusable neglect. Courts consider the possible prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the party’s control, and whether the party acted in good faith.

The court agreed that Bierbrauer raised valid concerns. It stated that Zahn was responsible for checking his mail and should have sought legal assistance after receiving the summons. The court also observed that the circumstances causing the delay were within Zahn’s control. Nevertheless, the court concluded that Magistrate Judge Foster acted within her discretion. The case was still in its early stages, which reduced the effect of the delay; the court found no bad faith; and denying the extension could have resulted in default judgment, a penalty the court viewed as disproportionate to any prejudice Bierbrauer suffered. The district court therefore overruled Bierbrauer’s objections and affirmed the April 2 Order.

Default Judgment

The court separately denied Bierbrauer’s motion for default judgment. First, no entry of default had been made by the clerk, and obtaining that entry is a required step before seeking default judgment. Second, Zahn had filed an answer by the extended deadline and was prepared to defend the case. Third, the court stated that delay alone does not establish the kind of concrete prejudice that can support default judgment, such as lost evidence, more difficult discovery, or increased opportunities for fraud or collusion.

Disposition

The court ordered that Bierbrauer’s objections to the April 2 Order were overruled, the April 2 Order was affirmed, and Bierbrauer’s motion for default judgment was denied. The opinion did not decide the merits of Bierbrauer’s underlying civil-rights claim.