Hunsinger v. Camino

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JOE HUNSINGER, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:26-cv-385-X-BN
§
JEREMIAH CAPACIO CAMINO, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
RENEWED MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTE SERVICE
Plaintiff Joe Hunsinger filed a pro se complaint raising claims that include
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute. See
Dkt. No. 3.
United States District Judge Brantley Starr referred this lawsuit to the
undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.
Hunsinger’s deadline to prove proper service on the named defendant (or file
an executed waiver of service) is May 14, 2026. See Dkt. No. 7; FED . R. CIV. P. 4(m).
The Court denied without prejudice Hunsinger’s first motion to authorize
substituted service [Dkt. No. 11] because his affidavit in support of that motion [Dkt.
No. 11-1] was not signed and therefore did not strictly comply with Texas’s rules, see
Dkt. No. 12.
Hunsinger now renews his request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(e)(1) and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106 for authorization to serve the named
Case 3:26-cv-00385-X-BN Document 15 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
defendant by email. See Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), a party may
be served by “following state law for serving a summons.” In this case,
Texas law applies and permits service by personal service or certified
mail. TEX. R. CIV. P. 106(a). But Rule 106 also authorizes a court to order
substituted methods of service. Only after service by one of the two
methods provided in Rule 106(a) fails, may a court, upon motion
supported by proper affidavit, authorize substitute service. See State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298, 298-99 (Tex. 1993).
Upon motion of the plaintiff with a sworn statement listing the
location a defendant can be found, and the facts of the attempted, yet
unsuccessful service, a court may authorize service “in any other
manner, 	including 	electronically 	by 	social 	media, 	email, 	or 	other
technology, that ... evidence shows will be reasonably effective to give
the defendant notice of suit.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 106(b)(2). “[S]ubstitute
service is not authorized ... without an affidavit which meets the
requirements of the rule demonstrating the necessity for other than
personal service.” Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990).
Viahart, L.L.C. v. GangPeng, No. 21-40166, 2022 WL 445161, at *2 (5th Cir. Feb. 14,
2022); accord Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Zeus Plumbing, No. SA-23-CV-01424-XR,
2024 WL 4795986, at *3 & n.1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024).
Hunsinger’s renewed motion and the attached affidavits comply with Rule 106.
And, so, the Court GRANTS Hunsinger’s renewed request to the extent that
the Court AUTHORIZES a process server over the age of eighteen years (but not
Hunsinger himself) to serve Defendant Jeremiah Capacio Camino by sending a
summons 	and 	the 	complaint 	to 	Camino 	through 	email 	(at
JEREMIAH.CAMINO@gmail.com). See TEX. R. CIV. P. 103 (“[N]o person who is a
party to or is interested in the outcome of a suit may serve any process in that suit,”
but process may be served by “any person authorized by … written order of the court
who is not less than eighteen years of age.”); cf. Jernigan v. McMillan, No. 3:22-cv-
2580-N-BN, 2023 WL 2668002, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2023) (“[W]hile the Court
Case 3:26-cv-00385-X-BN Document 15 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
authorizes 	this 	method 	of 	service” 	– 	service 	through 	a 	defendant’s 	YouTube
channel/account – “Jernigan herself, as a party, may not serve McMillan in this
manner.”).
Proof of this service must be filed by May 14, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 8, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00385-X-BN Document 15 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>