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 August 12, warning that failure would dismiss the case.
Shariful Mintu and the defendants in the action, including Alejandro Mayorkas.
What happened
In Mintu v. Mayorkas, Shariful Mintu was required to show that the defendants had been served with the lawsuit. The court had previously ordered him to file an affidavit confirming service by July 21, 2022.
That deadline passed without Mintu filing the affidavit or informing the court about any attempts to complete service. The court reminded him that he remained responsible for ensuring that the U.S. Marshals completed service, even though he was proceeding without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Mintu to file the affidavit of service by August 12, 2022. The order warned that failing to meet that deadline would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), but this order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Mintu v. Mayorkas · No. 1:22-cv-02065
- Vernon Broderick
- July 29, 2022
Background
On July 1, 2022, the court ordered pro se Plaintiff Shariful Mintu to file an affidavit of service by July 21, 2022. An affidavit of service is a written statement confirming that the defendants were served with the lawsuit. The court had warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which addresses the time for serving defendants.
Mintu was proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer, and had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court stated that he nevertheless had the duty to ensure that the U.S. Marshals completed service on all defendants. The July 21 deadline passed, and Mintu had not filed an affidavit of service or informed the court of any attempts to complete service.
Ruling
The court ordered Mintu to file an affidavit of service on or before August 12, 2022. It stated that Mintu’s failure to file the affidavit by that date would result in dismissal of the action under Rule 4(m). The order did not itself dismiss the action or decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.