United States of America v. Crissey

Filing 5

ORDER denying without prejudice 3 Motion for Alternate Service; granting 4 Motion to Extend Time for Service. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-15019

FREDRICK J. CRISSEY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR ALTERNATE SERVICE
AND GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for alternate service. Plaintiff states service
of process cannot reasonably be made upon Defendant Fredrick J. Crissey, and that it
appears Defendant has been evading service. The court is not convinced that Plaintiff
has shown that service cannot reasonably be made by traditional means, and will
therefore deny the motion without prejudice. Because this motion was pending when
Defendant requested that the court extend the time for service, the court will grant an
additional 30 days to effectuate service.
Service of a complaint filed in a federal court is proper by any method permitted
for serving a complaint by the state in which the federal court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(e)(1). Under Michigan law, “the court may by order permit service of process to be
made in any other manner reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice of
the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.” Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(I)(1). Plaintiff asks
the court for permission to effect service by “alternate means,” but does not suggest
what alternate means would reasonably ensure actual notice. At this stage in the

litigation, however, it does not matter, as the court is not persuaded that alternative
service is warranted. Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing, under Michigan law,
that “that service of process cannot reasonably be made as provided” otherwise. Mich.
Ct. R. 2.105(I)(1).
The attached affidavit of the process server indicates that service was attempted
at 346 Blunk Street, in Plymouth, Michigan, on five different occasions, twice in the
“morning” on Sundays, twice in the “afternoon” on weekdays, and once at an
unspecified time on Saturday. The court is not convinced that these unsuccessful
attempts, at these particular times, evince an effort to evade service. No further
information is given as to what was observed at the residence, or what times service
was attempted. Additionally, the court notes that it is not uncommon for people to be
away from their residence on weekday afternoons or on Sunday mornings. The court is
not, at this point, persuaded that Plaintiff’s counsel has diligently explored all potential
leads to exhaust service attempts through traditional means. Thus, Plaintiff has not yet
made an adequate showing that Defendant cannot be located with reasonable diligence
and that service of process cannot reasonably be made as provided in the rules. The
motion for alternate service will be denied without prejudice. Pursuing the motion,
however, is enough to constitute “good cause” to extend the time for service under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(m). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for alternate service [Dkt. # 3] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to extend time for service [Dkt.
# 4] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have an additional seven weeks from the issuance of
this order to effectuate service on Defendant.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 25, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, April 25, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\13-15019.CRISSY.AlternativeService.Deny.wpd

3