VENABLE v. LEWISTON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 14

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE re 11 Motion for Service By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (jib)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
CHRISTIAN VENABLE,
PLAINTIFF
V.

LEWISTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
CITY OF LEWISTON,
DEREK ST. LAURENT AND
KATHERINE ROONEY,
DEFENDANTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-473-DBH

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
The plaintiff has moved for alternate service of the complaint in this
lawsuit, namely, using a defendant’s Facebook account. Federal Rules permit a
plaintiff to use a method provided by state law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Maine
permits alternate means of service where other methods fail, Me. R. Civ. P. 4(g),
but requires a motion that complies with the following:
Any such motion shall be supported by (i) a draft,
proposed order to provide the requested service by alternate
means, and (ii) an affidavit showing that: (A) The moving
party has demonstrated due diligence in attempting to obtain
personal service of process in a manner otherwise prescribed
by Rule 4 or by applicable statute; (B) The identity and/or
physical location of the person to be served cannot
reasonably be ascertained, or is ascertainable but it appears
the person is evading process; and (C) The requested method
and manner of service is reasonably calculated to provide
actual notice of the pendency of the action to the party to be
served and is the most practical manner of effecting notice of
the suit.

Here the plaintiff has failed to provide a draft proposed order. Moreover,
his affidavit does not “demonstrate[ ] due diligence in attempting to obtain
personal service of process in a manner otherwise prescribed” by rule or statute,
and it does not “show[ ]” that the “physical location of the person to be served
cannot reasonably be ascertained.” The plaintiff states only that he “has made
a good-faith effort to find Defendant,” and that “[t]hese efforts over several
months have proven futile.”

Pl.’s Mot. at 1.

Those are mere conclusory

assertions, not a demonstration or a showing.
The motion for alternative service is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2