United States District Court, D. New Jersey
TRACY A. GARNER, Plaintiff,
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., et al., Defendants.
A. GARNER Appearing pro se
RICHARD J. NALBANDIAN ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT,
LLC On behalf of Defendants
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
matter concerns claims by Plaintiff, appearing pro se,
against several Defendants arising out of the state court
foreclosure and sale of Plaintiff's home in June
2016.Plaintiff claims that the purported
mortgage note he signed is actually a “copyright,
” and his signature on the copyright made it
a “copyright derivative.” Plaintiff claims that
this constituted fraud and violated his due process rights
because it deprived him of his identity. Plaintiff also
disputes that he was provided with a loan and challenges an
assignment of the loan and a loan modification. Plaintiff
contests the Defendants' right to institute the state
court foreclosure action against him, and Plaintiff also
takes issue with the conduct of the state court judge and
court employees who handled the foreclosure case. Plaintiff
additionally asserts claims against the attorneys who were
involved in his bankruptcy case.
filed his complaint on August 28, 2017, and on December 14,
2017, three of the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint. (Docket No. 4.) They first argue
that Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for
insufficient service of process. These Defendants further
argue that Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed pursuant
to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,  the Colorado
River abstention doctrine,  and the Anti-Injunction
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff's claims fail to
state cognizable claims under federal pleading standards.
January 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter in response to
Defendants' motion. (Docket No. 5.) In his letter,
Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to
Defendants' motion because he did not receive the motion
until December 23, 2017 and he was evicted from his home and
lost relevant documents. Plaintiff further related that he
was surprised to receive the motion because he had not yet
served any Defendants, and he questioned how the moving
Defendants were made aware of his case and able to file a
motion without being served. Plaintiff requested that his
case be stayed for 90 days so that he could locate all the
defendants he wished to assert claims against, and file an
has been no activity in the case since Plaintiff's
letter. Even though the Court did not specifically address
Plaintiff's request to stay his case for 90 days, the
passage of time effectively has provided that relief. The
90-day period expired on April 2, 2018.
was required to serve Defendants by November 27, 2017,
see Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (providing that a plaintiff
must serve a defendant within 90 days of filing his
complaint), and Plaintiff admits in his January 2, 2018
letter that he had not served any Defendant. The Court
construes Plaintiff's letter to be a request to not only
have more time to respond to Defendants' motion to
dismiss, but to also effect service. See Higgs v. Atty.
Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011)
(“The obligation to liberally construe a pro se
litigant's pleadings [and other submissions to the court]
is well-established.”). In so construing
Plaintiff's letter, the Court finds that Plaintiff
provided good cause for his lack of service up until that
point. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (providing that the
court may extend the time for service if the plaintiff shows
good cause for the failure).
been six months, however, since Plaintiff last contacted the
Court and requested time to file his opposition to
Defendants' motion and properly serve all the defendants.
Nothing precluded Plaintiff from attempting service during
that time and there is nothing on the docket to suggest the
moving Defendants have been properly served. Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), if a plaintiff fails to timely serve the
defendants, the Court may (1) dismiss the action on the
motion of a defendant, (2) dismiss the action on its own
after notice to the plaintiff, or (3) order that service be
made within a specified time. Accordingly, the Court will
direct Plaintiff to show cause as to why his complaint should
not be dismissed for his failure to serve the Defendants
under Rule 4(m).
appropriate Order will be entered.
 This Court has jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
 Plaintiff's claim is non-sensical.
A “copyright” is not a thing, a piece of paper or
tangible object. Rather, it is a bundle of legal rights