Wright v. J & S Extradition Services LLC et al

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT: Plaintiff's Motion for Alternative Service of Process (Docket Entry No. 44 ) is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 1/30/2012. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JAMES BRIAN WRIGHT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
J&S EXTRADITION SERVICES, LLC, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

NO. 3:11-0464
Judge Haynes/Bryant

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff James Brian Wright, a prisoner proceeding pro
se, has filed his “Motion for Alternative Service of Process”
(Docket Entry No. 44), by which he seeks an order authorizing
service of process upon defendants in this case by email or
facsimile transmission.
In his motion papers, plaintiff describes the efforts he
has undertaken in order to obtain service on J&S Extradition
Services, LLC and certain of the individual defendants.

Plaintiff

has concluded, perhaps with justification, that at least some of
these defendants are intentionally seeking to avoid service of
process.

Plaintiff

therefore

seeks

an

order

of

this

Court

authorizing him to serve copies of the summons and complaint upon
these defendants by email or facsimile transmission (Docket Entry
No. 45 at 9).
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs
service of process in federal district courts.

In general, Rule 4

provides that individual defendants within this judicial district

may be served in a manner authorized by state law for serving
process

in

the

state

courts

of

general

jurisdiction

or,

alternatively, by any of the three ways described in Rule 4(e)(2).
Similarly, Rule 4(h) describes the manner in which service is to be
obtained on a corporation or other unincorporated association.
Significantly, neither of the foregoing subsections of Rule 4
authorizes

service

of

process

by

email

or

by

facsimile

transmission.
As grounds for his motion, plaintiff cites Rule 4(f)(3).
However, Rule 4(f) expressly pertains to service on an individual
in a foreign country, which is not applicable here. Similarly, the
only case cited by defendant that authorizes service of process by
electronic means involves a defendant in China.

See Chanel, Inc.

v. Song Xu, 2010 WL 396357 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2010). The
remaining authorities cited by plaintiff do not support the relief
he seeks, and none of his authorities stands for the proposition
that a defendant within the district may be served by email or
facsimile transmission.
For

the

reasons

stated

above

in

this

memorandum,

plaintiff’s Motion for Alternative Service of Process (Docket Entry
No. 44) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge
2