Easterling v. Crawford

Filing 14

ORDER QUASHING SERVICE OF ALIAS PROCESS AND PROOF OF SERVICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/2/2014. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WARREN EASTERLING,
Plaintiff,

:

Case No. 3:14-cv-226
District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vs:
JUDGE DALE CRAWFORD,

Defendant.

ORDER QUASHING SERVICE OF ALIAS PROCESS AND PROOF
OF SERVICE
This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Notice of Service Being Perfected on
8/27/2014 (Doc. No. 13).

Preserving his claim that he previously made good service on

Defendant Judge Dale Crawford, Plaintiff now offers documentation to “confirm service by the
U.S. Postal Service to the defendant’s home address with electronic delivery confirmation.” Id.
at PageID 69.
Alias process was issued in this case on August 24, 2014 (Doc. No. 12). On August 25,
2014, Plaintiff deposited a package with the United States Postal Service directed to an address
in Columbus, Ohio, and paid for priority mail second day service. No copy of what was
deposited in the mail has been furnished, but the Court accepts Plaintiff’s implicit representation
that it was the Summons and a copy of the Complaint.

1

Using the service provided at

www.packagetracer.com,1 Plaintiff tracked the package to its delivery using the tracking number
provided by the Postal Service. Plaintiff attaches tax records of the Franklin County, Ohio,
auditor, which show that Anne M. Crawford and Dale A. Crawford have a particular tax mailing
address in Columbus, Ohio, and the Court also accepts Plaintiff’s implicit representation that that
is the address on the package he deposited with the Postal Service.
However service by U.S. mail is not one of the methods permitted for serving an
individual under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) does permit use of any method for
service of process allowed by state law for process from the Court of Common Pleas. Ohio R.
Civ. P. 4.1 allows residential service, personal service, certified or express mail service made by
the clerk of courts, or service by the clerk by use of a commercial carrier service which requires
a signed receipt.

Plaintiff’s purported service on Judge Crawford satisfies none of these

alternatives.
Finally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) requires proof of service to be made by sworn affidavit and
no such affidavit appears among the papers Plaintiff has filed purporting to prove service.
Purported proof of service (Doc. No. 13) is therefore also QUASHED.
September 2, 2014.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

1

This service is not provided by the United State Postal Service.

2