posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by forceflow15:
Yes. I forget the exact citation but a westlaw search for Satan should turn it up. The case was dismissed not for lack of service of process, but because the PA judge ruled that he did not have personal jurisdiction over Satan.

---

Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                       

quote:

---

The case was dismissed not for lack of service of process, but because the PA judge ruled that he did not have personal jurisdiction over Satan.

---

quote:

---

Plaintiff sued Satan for violation of his civil rights under various United States statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff allaged that "Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and caused the plaintiff's downfall ..." and that by doing so, Satan has deprived him of his civil rights.

The court denied his claim. In delivering his opinion Judge Weber questioned whether plaintiff had a cause of action upon which relief could be granted by the court. Indeed, in civil procedure we learned that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows a cause of action against a party acting in violation of one's constitutional rights under the auspices of a state or territory. It can be inferred from the court's opinion that plaintiff failed to prove how Satan was acting as an agent of a state.

In the opinion Judge Weber further wrote, "We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district."

And, "If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical... We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the interests of the class."

And finally, "We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshall for directions as to service of process."

---

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged |