Jackson v. Jordon
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 8/12/2014. (jf2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
NUSAIBA JACKSON, pro se
Plaintiff
v.
JOSEPH JORDON
Defendant
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil No. PJM 13-1013
OPINION
Plaintiff Nusaiba Jackson, pro se, brought suit against Joseph Jordon, alleging copyright
infringement for material he purportedly posted online that she claims belonged to her. After
numerous extensions granted by the Court, Jackson has still failed to properly effectuate service
of process on Jordon in accordance with the Court’s instructions, or to provide the supplemental
information requested by the Court. For the reasons discussed below, the Complaint is now
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Jackson’s first Proof of Service (Paper No. 6) indicated that service of process had been
made by certified mail. On August 20, 2013, in a Memorandum Order (Paper No. 7), the Court
indicated to Jackson that service of process was deficient under the relevant rule, Maryland Rule
of Procedure (“M.R.P.”) 2-121, because there was no indication of delivery, and there was no
original return receipt provided. The Court granted Jackson 60 days to effectuate proper service
of process. The Court noted that if proper service was not effectuated, the Court could dismiss
the case for failure of service.
On October 28, 2013, Jackson filed an “Affidavit” (Paper No. 8) indicating that a process
server had attempted to serve the summons on Jordon, via certified mail, restricted delivery,
return receipt, but the package was returned unexecuted, and Jackson suspected that Jordon was
•
evading service of process.
On January 6, 2014, in a Memorandum Order (Paper No.9),
the
Court found that under M.R.P. 2-121 (b), Jordon might be evading service, and directed that
service be made within 60 days under 2-121(b) by mailing a copy of the summons, complaint
and all other papers filed with it to Defendant's last known residence and delivering a copy to a
person of suitable age and discretion at the place of business of the defendant. On March 4, 2014,
Jackson tiled a Response, seeking a two week extension. (Paper NO.1 0). The Court granted her
request. (Paper No. II).
On March 20, 2014, Jackson
filed correspondence
seeking (I) advice on how to
effectuate service; and (2) seeking an order to allow her to notify websites where her purported
copyrighted material was posted that the material had "been infringed upon."
(Paper No. 12).
The Court's law clerk responded by letter to Jackson that the Court could not advise her on how
to try her case, and nothing was before the Court to rule on. (Paper No. 13).
On April 10,2014, nearly a year after the case was originally filed, Jackson filed another
Proof of Service, indicating that service had been made on an individual, Nathan Cederoth, at
Defendant's "residence or usual place of abode," and by "mailing a copy to the individual's last
known address" (Paper No. 14). The Proof of Service did not indicate which addresses were used
for service. That same day, Defendant Jordon called the Court, asking how to proceed.
On June 24, 2014, the Court issued an Order, telling both parties that it could not advise
them how to proceed with their cases, and directing them to submit their respective pleadings or
supplemental information within 30 days. [fthey did not, the Court noted that it would act on the
pleadings as they stand. The deadline has now passed, and neither party has tiled anything in
response.
As the Court noted in its Order, it cannot tell whether Jordon has been properly served
because the Return of Service (Paper No. 14) does not provide sufficient information to indicate
2
•
whether service was completed as directed by the Court. In its January 6, 2014 Order, the Court
directed a specific means of service based on its finding (as requested by Jackson) that Jordon
had been evading service.
Jackson's Return of Service does not indicate that she followed the
Court's Order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides that if a defendant is not served, a court, on its own after
notice to the plaintiff "must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order
that service be made within a specitied time." The Court has already granted Jackson multiple
extensions, and provided notice to her that it would dismiss the action if proper service was not
effectuated.
She has failed to heed the Court's
instructions
and provide
supplemental information to establish whether Jordon was properly served.
Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A separate Order will issue.
August 12,2014
UNITE
3
the requested
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?