Mullane v. Moreno et al
| Jonathan Mullane |
| Benjamin G. Greenberg, Lisa T. Roberts, Federico A. Moreno and Alison W. Lehr |
| 1:2020cv21339 |
| March 27, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Jacqueline Becerra |
| K Michael Moore |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. § 1964 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 29, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 20
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Service of Process by the United States Marshal Service. #19 . Therein, Plaintiff requests that Court order that a United States Marshal effectuate service pursuant to Rule 4(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendants have failed to timely sign and return a waiver of service. Id. at 12. Rule 4(c)(3) provides that, "[a]t the plaintiffs request, the court may order that services be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or a by a person specifically appointed by the court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). If a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, it is within the Courts discretion to order the United States Marshal to serve civil process. See Prospectus v. Todd, No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP, 2017 WL 2291367, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May, 25, 2017). Further, "a plaintiff requesting appointment of the United States Marshal in order to comply with the service requirement of Rule 4 must provide a factual basis for why a court order is necessary to accomplish service." Id. Plaintiff does not indicate why service by the United States Marshals Service is necessary to accomplish service. See generally #19 ; see also Prospectus, 2017 WL 2291367, at *1 (finding service by a United States Marshal was not necessary to complete service where Plaintiff had alternatives available to effectuate service). The mere fact that Defendants have not waived service is not grounds for the Court to order a United States Marshal to effectuate service on Defendants as there are alternatives available to Plaintiff, such as hiring a private process server. Id. Moreover, the Advisory Committee Notes state that service by the United States Marshals Service "is generally proper when it is necessary to keep the peace," a circumstances not present in the instant action. Davis v. U.S. Installation Group, Inc., No. 12-80392-CIV, 2012 WL 4511359, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2012) (citation omitted). Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Motion #19 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 5/7/2020. (mgh)
|
| Filing 19 VERIFIED MOTION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS BY THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3) AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Jonathan Mullane. Responses due by 5/21/2020 (cds) |
| Filing 18 VERIFIED OMNIBUS MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND FOR REASSIGNMENT TO AN OUT-OF DISTRICT JUDGE, AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW ( Responses due by 5/19/2020) by Jonathan Mullane. (cds) |
| Filing 17 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction re #1 Verified Complaint __Error: Images Incomplete __Correction: Documents Replaced with Complete Image. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A-B, #3 Exhibit C-E, #4 Exhibit F-G). SEE ATTACHED FOR COPY (ail) |
|
Filing 16
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Jonathan Mullane's Motion for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program. #3 . Therein, Plaintiff Jonathan Mullane requests that the Court refer his request for counsel to the Court's Volunteer Attorney Program because he is unable to afford an attorney. Id. There is no right to counsel in civil actions. See Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 1999). "Where the facts and issues are simple, litigants will usually not need help." Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993). Moreover, it is within the Court's discretion to refer the matter to the Volunteer Attorney Program. Plaintiff brings an eighteen (18) count Complaint ("Compl.") (ECF No. 1) against Defendants Alison W. Lehr, Benjamin G. Greenberg, Lisa T. Roberts and the Honorable Federico A. Moreno. See generally Compl. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to interfere with Plaintiff's current and prospective employment by spreading false and defamatory information about Plaintiff. See id. at 2431. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Judge Moreno unlawfully procured Plaintiff's employment records with the United States Attorney's Office and sent non-public hearing transcripts to various national legal publications. See id. at 3. The Court finds that the facts and issues of the matter are straightforward and thus referral to the Volunteer Attorney Program is not warranted. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion #3 , the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Motion #3 is hereby DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 4/8/2020. (mgh)
|
| Filing 15 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction re #8 Request for Waiver of Service. Wrong Event selected for Image see DE#14 Other. (cds) |
| Filing 13 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction re 10 Amended Complaint. Document Restricted Due to Error. (pes) |
| Filing 12 Summons Issued as to Benjamin G. Greenberg, Alison W. Lehr, Federico A. Moreno, Jonathan Mullane. (ail) |
| Filing 11 Consent by Pro Se Litigant (Non-Prisoner) Jonathan Mullane to receive Notices of Electronic Filing at email address: J.Mullane@icloud.com (*Unsigned) (ail) |
| Filing 9 MOTION for CM/EFC Access and for Leave to File Electronically by Jonathan Mullane. (cds) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Filing Service of Summons by Jonathan Mullane (cds) |
| Filing 8 (RESTRICTED) Notice of Lawsuit and REQUEST to Waive Service of a Summons sent to Federico A. Moreno on 03/30/2020 by Jonathan Mullane. (cds) Text Modified on 4/7/2020 (cds). |
| SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 10 [cmp] restricted/sealed until further notice. (pes) |
|
Filing 7
PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JACQUELINE BECERRA. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. Any motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order is excluded from this referral, unless specifically referred by separate Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra's discovery procedures. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 3/30/2020. (mgh)
|
|
Filing 4
PAPERLESS PRETRIAL ORDER. This order has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of this Order. It is further ORDERED that S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1 shall apply to this case and the parties shall hold a scheduling conference no later than twenty (20) days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, or within sixty (60) days after the filing of the complaint, whichever occurs first. However, if all defendants have not been served by the expiration of this deadline, Plaintiff shall move for an enlargement of time to hold the scheduling conference, not to exceed 90 days from the filing of the Complaint. Within ten (10) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint scheduling report. Failure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth above may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. The parties should note that the time period for filing a joint scheduling report is not tolled by the filing of any other pleading, such as an amended complaint or Rule 12 motion. The scheduling conference may be held via telephone. At the conference, the parties shall comply with the following agenda that the Court adopts from S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1: (1) Documents (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.1 and 2) - The parties shall determine the procedure for exchanging a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents and other evidence that is reasonably available and that a party expects to offer or may offer if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). (a) Documents include computations of the nature and extent of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party unless the computations are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). (b) Documents include insurance agreements which may be at issue with the satisfaction of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D). (2) List of Witnesses - The parties shall exchange the name, address and telephone number of each individual known to have knowledge of the facts supporting the material allegations of the pleading filed by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose this information. (3) Discussions and Deadlines (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.2) - The parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Failure to comply with this Order or to exchange the information listed above may result in sanctions and/or the exclusion of documents or witnesses at the time of trial. S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.I. Pursuant to Administrative Order 2016-70 of the Southern District of Florida and consistent with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures, within three days of the conclusion of a trial or other proceeding, parties must file via CM/ECF electronic versions of documentary exhibits admitted into evidence, including photographs of non-documentary physical exhibits. The Parties are directed to comply with each of the requirements set forth in Administrative Order 2016-70 unless directed otherwise by the Court.Telephonic appearances are not permitted for any purpose. Upon reaching a settlement in this matter the parties are instructed to notify the Court by telephone and to file a Notice of Settlement within twenty-four (24) hours. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 3/30/2020. (mgh)
|
| Filing 5 Clerks Notice of Receipt of Filing Fee received on 3/27/2020 in the amount of $ 400.00, receipt number FLS100206026. (scn) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program by Jonathan Mullane. (pcs) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (pcs) |
| Filing 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT against Benjamin G. Greenberg, Alison W. Lehr, Federico A. Moreno, Lisa T. Roberts. Filing fees $ 400.00 Not Paid/No IFP, filed by Jonathan Mullane. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(pcs) (Attachment 1 replaced on 3/30/2020) (jas). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
