Walker v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 7/3/15 denying 64 Motion for Default Judgment. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TONY D. WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-CV-3

EDWARD F. WALL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against
defendant Edward F. Wall. Plaintiff argues that default judgment should be entered
against Wall because the Wisconsin Department of Justice failed to include Wall’s name
on an Amended Notice of Appearance. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
On April 22, 2014, I allowed plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim
against Wall and John Doe defendants. On April 29, 2014, Assistant Attorney General
John Glinski filed an acceptance of service and notice of appearance on behalf of Wall.
Wall answered plaintiff’s original complaint on June 23, 2014.
On October 2, 2014, I allowed plaintiff to amend his complaint to add additional
defendants. On October 14, 2014 AAG Glinski filed an amended notice of appearance
and an amended acceptance of service. Although AAG Glinski inadvertently omitted
Wall’s name from the amended notice of appearance, the amended acceptance of service
clearly indicates that the “[Wisconsin] Department of Justice accepts service on behalf of
Edward Wall . . . .” Defendants, including Wall, answered plaintiff’s amended complaint
on November 26, 2014. The answer lists Wall as one of the answering defendants.

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to default judgment against Wall because Wall
was not listed in the amended notice of appearance. As such, plaintiff argues that AAG
Glinski did not represent Wall and therefore could not file an answer on his behalf.
Plaintiff misunderstands the legal significance of a notice of appearance. Neither
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rule for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin require an attorney to file such a notice. The notice is a courtesy to the Court
and the opposing party to notify them of who will be appearing on the party’s behalf and
upon whom all papers, pleadings, correspondence and other documents associated with
the action should be served. The notice has no bearing on whether a particular individual
is actually represented by the attorney–that relationship is governed by agreements
between the attorney and the individual. In other words, failure to include an individual’s
name on a notice of appearance will not negate an agreement that an individual has with
an attorney regarding representation.
Here, the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s representation of defendant Wall is
demonstrated by its acceptance of service and timely answer to plaintiff’s complaint on
defendant Wall’s behalf. The inadvertent omission of Wall from the amended notice of
appearance is legally meaningless. Because Wall and his attorneys have complied with
the requirements imposed by the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure, I will deny
plaintiff’s motion.

2

ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to
defendant Edward Wall (Docket #64) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 3rd day of July, 2015.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3