United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
ANTHONY D. JEWETT, JANE DOE I, JANE DOE II, JANE DOE III, JANE DOE IV and JANE DOE V, Plaintiffs,
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, NATHANIEL IRVIN, II, NATHANIEL IRVIN, III, JOVIAN ZAYNE, LLC, WONDALAND PRODUCTIONS, LLC and EXOMEDICINE INSTITUTE, Defendants.
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court after a telephonic status
conference on July 10, 2018, at which pro se
Plaintiff Anthony Jewett and counsel for Defendants
University of Louisville and Dr. Nathaniel Irvin, II
appeared. (Doc. 28). The Court set the conference because of
issues with service, not prosecuting this case, and ignoring
the Court's Orders. At the end of the conference, the
Court dismissed the case because of these issues with a
written order to follow. This is that Order.
year, Jewett sued Defendants in Florida state court for
tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and
invasion of privacy because of Defendants' “use of
voice-to-skull technology.” (Doc. 1). According to
Jewett, voice-to-skull technology “is the transmission
of voice, or other audible or subliminal sound, directly into
the head and hearing sense of a victim via sonic
microwaves.” (Doc. 1 at 5, ¶ 5). He has requested
$52 million in damages. The University and Dr. Irvin removed
the case to federal court in December 2017 based on diversity
jurisdiction. (Doc. 2). They also answered the Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 12).
prompting the status conference was the parties ignoring the
Court's endorsed order dated May 31, 2018, which directed
them to select a mediator. In the parties' Case
Management Report, they agreed to pick a mediator by May 30,
2018. (Doc. 18 at 3). When that day passed without action,
the Court directed the parties to select a mediator within
five days. (Doc. 24). Both parties were silent until last
Friday when only the University and Dr. Irvin filed a
five-week late response. (Doc. 27).
to the University and Dr. Irvin's response, they told
Jewett in early April that they agreed to two of his proposed
mediators, but they never heard back. (Doc. 27-1). The
University and Dr. Irvin also noted that they have not
received Jewett's Rule 26 disclosures. In addition, they
claimed that Jewett has not properly served them and that
they have not waived their right to receive proper service.
Consequently, the University and Dr. Irvin requested that the
Court dismiss this case as against them for failure to serve
contemporaneous issue to the parties' failure to select a
mediator was Jewett not serving the other named Defendants -
i.e., Nathaniel Irvin, III, Jovian Zayne, LLC,
Wondaland Productions, LLC, Exomedicine Institute, and
several Jane Does. Because of the deficient service, the
Court directed Jewett to show cause on or before July 5,
2018, as to why the Court should not dismiss his case as
against those Defendants for failure to effect service. (Doc.
26). To date, Jewett has not filed a written response.
status conference, the Court sought insight from the parties
on the above issues. The conference, however, did not start
on solid ground. Jewett neither appeared for the conference
nor contacted the Court for information about taking part
telephonically. The Court tried several telephone numbers for
Jewett before finally reaching him. Jewett told the Court
that he did not know about the conference and that he had not
been receiving the Court's Orders. His explanation did
not go far because Jewett confirmed that his current mailing
address is the precise address where the Court has been
sending its orders. The Court also notes that its Orders have
not been returned as undeliverable and thus concludes Jewett
has received sufficient notice.
next to the mediator issue, Jewett admitted that he never
responded to the University and Dr. Irvin's email about
picking a mediator. Although he claimed that he did not
receive the Court's May 31 Order on selecting a mediator,
Jewett again confirmed his mailing address to be the one on
record in this case. In addition, the Court asked Jewett
about why he has not provided the University and Dr. Irvin
with his Rule 26 disclosures. He gave a non-responsive
there, the Court allowed Jewett to explain why he has had
difficulty prosecuting this case. Jewett said that Defendants
have been using electromagnetic weapons through satellite and
cell phone communications that interrupt his ability to think
independently. He claimed that Defendants have voice-to-skull
technology that surround him with crippling and disabling
sensations and thus affect his ability to prosecute this
case. As best the Court could tell, Jewett orally requested a
protective order directing Defendants to cease using their
voice-to-skull technology against him and his family. The
Court orally denied his request.
Court next tackled why Jewett has not served the other named
Defendants and never responded to the Court's Order.
Jewett said that he tried to serve them through social media.
This is improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court thus dismissed Defendants Nathaniel Irvin, III,
Jovian Zayne, LLC, Wondaland Productions, LLC, Exomedicine
Institute, and the Jane Does.
University and Dr. Irvin also commented on service, claiming
that they too have not been properly served. The University
and Dr. Irvin continued that they have not waived improper
service despite removing this action from state court, filing
certificates of interested persons and corporate disclosure
statements, and answering the Amended
Complaint. Without deciding this argument, the Court
is suspect on whether Jewett has effectively served them.
carefully considering the parties' arguments, the
pleadings, docket, and Jewett's pro se status,
the Court dismissed this case. Jewett has not properly served
most (if not all) Defendants. Although he claimed that he can
continue with this matter, his actions to date suggest
otherwise. He discarded his responsibility to stay abreast of
this case. He neither checked his mail for the Court's
Orders and other filings nor consulted PACER. Jewett also
disregarded communications from defense counsel, not provided
his Rule 26 initial disclosures, and ignored several Court
orders. And, even a liberal reading of the Amended Complaint
suggests that this action is frivolous and nonsensical.
Taking these problems together, the Court dismissed this