Reported / Citable
Background
Zak Shaik, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Bay Mountain Capital LLC and another defendant. After screening the amended complaint, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve both defendants. The Marshals could not serve Bay Mountain at the address Shaik provided because it was a UPS Store and the company was no longer located there. An attempted delivery to CT Corporation also failed because that company was not Bay Mountain’s registered agent.
The magistrate judge repeatedly extended Shaik’s service deadline and explained possible alternatives, including service through the Texas Secretary of State or a court-authorized substitute method. Shaik instead sought service by mail, posting at the previously unsuccessful UPS Store address, or email. The court denied those requests because Shaik did not establish that the proposed methods were reasonably likely to give Bay Mountain actual notice. The final extended deadline expired on April 30, 2026, without service.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Brian McKay recommended dismissing Shaik’s claims against Bay Mountain without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). This document is a findings, conclusions, and recommendation—not a final dismissal order—and the parties have 14 days after service to file specific written objections.
The magistrate judge reasoned that although the court arranged for the Marshals Service to attempt service because Shaik was proceeding in forma pauperis, Shaik remained responsible for supplying a correct address or a valid method of service. Nearly seven months after service was authorized—more than twice Rule 4(m)’s default 90-day period—Shaik had neither served Bay Mountain nor shown adequate grounds for substitute service.
Key Takeaways
- An in forma pauperis plaintiff may receive assistance from the U.S. Marshals Service, but must still provide accurate information that permits service.
- Alternative service requires specific facts showing that the proposed method is reasonably likely to provide the defendant actual notice.
- Repeated reliance on an unsuccessful address and unverified email accounts did not justify another extension of the Rule 4(m) deadline.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that pro se status and court-assisted service do not eliminate a plaintiff’s procedural obligations. When ordinary service fails, a plaintiff seeking substitute service must support the request with concrete, current facts rather than conclusory assertions.
It also underscores the limited disposition under Rule 4(m): the recommended dismissal is without prejudice and applies only to Shaik’s claims against Bay Mountain Capital LLC.