Roker v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-05004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Roker v. Nexstar, Judge Liman ordered service on the defendants and denied Roker’s request for counsel without prejudice.
The order affects Roker’s ability to serve Nexstar Media Group, Inc. and WREG-TV/News Channel 3 and leaves open the possibility that he may renew his request for volunteer counsel. It does not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
What happened
Roker v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. concerns Damond Julian Roker’s claim that Nexstar Media Group, Inc. and WREG-TV/News Channel 3 unlawfully used his copyrighted material. Roker is incarcerated and is representing himself. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so the defendants could be served. The court extended the service period until 90 days after the summonses are issued and said Roker should request more time if service is not completed by then.
Judge Liman denied Roker’s request for the court to seek a volunteer lawyer without prejudice, meaning Roker may renew the request later. The court said it was too early to evaluate the case’s merits and also instructed the Clerk to mail Roker an information package.
The detailed version
- Roker v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-05004
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 23, 2024
Background
Damond Julian Roker, who is incarcerated at Northwest Correctional Complex in Tiptonville, Tennessee, filed this action without a lawyer. He alleges that Nexstar Media Group, Inc. and WREG-TV/News Channel 3 unlawfully infringed his copyrighted material. The amended complaint is the operative pleading. The court had allowed Roker to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of the defendants
Because Roker was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, issue summonses, and deliver the documents needed for service to the Marshals Service.
The court stated that service must be completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Roker should request an extension of time. The court also directed Roker to notify it in writing if his address changes and warned that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Request for counsel
Roker moved for the court to request a volunteer lawyer. In evaluating such a request, courts consider the apparent merits of the case, the person’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. The court denied Roker’s motion without prejudice to renewal later because the case was too early for the court to assess its merits.
Disposition
The Clerk was directed to issue summonses, prepare the service forms, send the service materials to the Marshals Service, and mail Roker an information package. The court denied Roker’s motion for the court to request counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.