Brock v. Zuckerberg
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-07513
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Brock v. Zuckerberg, Judge Liman directed Marshals Service for three defendants and postponed identifying the unnamed defendants.
Mandela Brock, who was proceeding without a lawyer; Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Inc., and Sheryl Sandberg, whom the Marshals Service was to serve; and the unidentified John Doe and Jane Doe defendants, whose identification was deferred.
What happened
In Brock v. Zuckerberg, Mandela Brock, representing himself, alleged that the defendants unlawfully and unconstitutionally censored his Facebook activity. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Inc., and Sheryl Sandberg. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.
Judge Liman declined for now to issue an order requiring help identifying the unnamed John Doe and Jane Doe defendants because Brock provided no facts about what they allegedly did. The court said it could revisit that issue later.
The detailed version
- Brock v. Zuckerberg · No. 1:20-cv-07513
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 25, 2020
Background
Mandela Brock, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Inc., Sheryl Sandberg, and unidentified John Doe and Jane Doe defendants unlawfully and unconstitutionally censored his activity on Facebook. The court had previously granted Brock permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Service on the Named Defendants
Because Brock was allowed to proceed without paying fees upfront, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the usual 90-day service period until 90 days after the summonses are issued. It said that, if service is not completed within that period, Brock should request an extension.
The Clerk of Court was directed to issue summonses, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Inc., and Sheryl Sandberg, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service. Brock was also required to notify the court in writing if his address changes; the court stated that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Unidentified Defendants
Brock named John Doe 1-100 and Jane Doe 1-100 but did not provide facts in the complaint describing what any of them allegedly did or failed to do. The court explained that a self-represented litigant may receive court assistance in identifying an unknown defendant, but it found that Brock had not supplied enough information for that assistance at this time. The court therefore declined to issue such an identification order now and said it could reconsider the issue later.
Disposition
Judge Lewis Liman directed the Clerk to mail Brock a copy of the order and an information package, issue the summonses, complete the service forms, and send the documents to the Marshals Service. The court declined at this time to issue an identification order concerning John Doe 1-100 or Jane Doe 1-100. The order addressed service and identification procedures; it did not decide whether the alleged censorship violated the law.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.