Smith v. Mayorkas
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-09576
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smith v. Mayorkas, Judge Cronan ordered Smith to report on service of the defendants by February 17, 2023.
Hubert George Smith and the defendants named in the action, including Alejandro Mayorkas. The order specifically imposed filing requirements on Smith and could affect whether the case continues.
What happened
In Smith v. Mayorkas, the court noted that Hubert George Smith filed the complaint and that the defendants had appeared, but the docket did not show whether they had been formally served.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after filing. Smith had not requested more time, so the court required him to explain the status of service and, if necessary, why there was a good reason to extend the deadline.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered Smith to file a status letter by February 17, 2023. If service had occurred, Smith also had to file proof of service. The court did not dismiss the case in this order but warned that it might do so for failure to prosecute if Smith did not file the letter.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Mayorkas · No. 1:22-cv-09576
- John Cronan
- Feb. 10, 2023
Background
Hubert George Smith filed the complaint on November 9, 2022, against Alejandro Mayorkas and other defendants. The defendants had appeared, but the docket did not show whether any defendant had been served. Smith had not asked the court to extend the time for service.
Court’s order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing. If service is not completed, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice against the unserved defendant or order service within a specified period. If the plaintiff shows good cause, the court must extend the service deadline for an appropriate period. The order described good cause as requiring diligent attempts and exceptional circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
The court ordered Smith to file a status letter by February 17, 2023, stating whether the summons and complaint had been served. If service had not occurred, the letter also had to explain why good cause existed to excuse the failure to serve within the 90-day period. Smith had to file the letter even if service had already occurred. If the defendants had been served, Smith also had to file proof of service by February 17, 2023.
Disposition and effect
Judge John P. Cronan issued an order requiring the status letter and, if applicable, proof of service. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It warned that the case might be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Smith did not file the required letter.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.