Comment: A friend of mine in lawschool as told be about a case where a man in PA attempted to sue the Devil for civil rights violations. The case was dismissed because the plaintiff was unable to serve the Devil with process. Is this true?
Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
"There was Joye in the courtroom, but he slipped on a-peel." = Prof. Kutner Posts: 101 | From: Pittsburgh, PA | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Oh, so it should have been a Federal case, then.
Brad "the Devil went down to D.C....." from Georgia
-------------------- "No hard feelin's and HOPpy New Year!"--Walt Kelly Hear what you're missing: ARTC podcasts! http://artcpodcast.org/ Posts: 7581 | From: Gainesville, Georgia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
The lack of directions for service of process appears to have been one of the elements cited in the dismissal:
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."