Mintu v. Mayorkas
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-02065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mintu v. Mayorkas, Judge Broderick ordered Shariful Mintu to file proof of service by July 21, 2022, warning that failure could lead to dismissal.
Shariful Mintu and the defendants named in the action, including Alejandro Mayorkas.
What happened
In Mintu v. Mayorkas, Shariful Mintu filed an action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
The court explained that although a plaintiff proceeding without paying fees may rely on the Marshals Service, the plaintiff remains responsible for ensuring that all defendants are served. More than 90 days had passed since the court’s service order, but Mintu had not filed proof of service.
Judge Broderick ordered Mintu to file an affidavit of service by July 21, 2022. The order warned that failing to file the affidavit, or to show a valid reason for the failure to serve, could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
The detailed version
- Mintu v. Mayorkas · No. 1:22-cv-02065
- Vernon Broderick
- July 1, 2022
Background
Shariful Mintu filed this action on March 14, 2022, and proceeded without a lawyer. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Mintu permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. After the case was reassigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants.
Service Requirement
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1) places responsibility for serving the summons and complaint on the plaintiff. The court explained that a plaintiff proceeding without paying the filing fee may rely on the Marshals Service to carry out service, but remains responsible for ensuring that service is completed for all defendants. More than 90 days had passed since the court ordered service, and Mintu had not filed an affidavit of service on the docket.
Order
The court ordered Mintu to file an affidavit of service by July 21, 2022. It warned that failure to serve the defendants, or to show good cause—a legally sufficient reason—for failing to do so within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) could result in dismissal of the action. The order did not dismiss the action at that time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.