Lepp et al v. Yuba County et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/8/17 ORDERING that plaintiff's request for an order directing the marshal to complete service of process (ECF No. 14 ) is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REVEREND HEIDI LEPP, et al.,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-1317-GEB-EFB PS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

YUBUD CHURCH, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Heidi Lepp requests that the court direct the United States Marshals Service to

18

complete service of process on her behalf. ECF No. 14. For the following reasons, the request is

19

denied.1

20

On June 27, 2017, Ms. Lepp filed a complaint against defendants the County of Yuba,

21

Jeremy Strange, and Chris Monaco, and paid the $400 filing fee. The following week, plaintiff

22

filed three proofs of service, purporting to demonstrate service of the summons and complaint on

23

the three named defendants. ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Lepp filed a first amended

24

complaint, which names an additional 27 defendants and purports to add several plaintiffs. ECF

25

No. 7. The amended complaint, however, is only signed by Ms. Lepp.

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s request was styled as a “Declaration and Statement of Facts and Information
of reverend heidi lepp Requested Under Seal.” Despite the title, Ms. Lepp did not file a request to
file the document under seal in compliance with Local Rule 141.
1

1

Ms. Lepp now requests that the court direct the United States Marshals Service to serve

2

the newly named defendants. ECF No. 14. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to serve each defendant

3

with a copy of the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“The plaintiff is responsible

4

for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must

5

furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.”). Although a court may, at the

6

plaintiff’s request, order the marshal to complete service, the court is not obligated to grant such a

7

request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (“At the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service

8

be made by a United States marshal . . . .”) (emphasis added).

9

Ms. Lepp has failed to demonstrate any basis for her request. In fact, the three proofs of

10

service she has already filed in this action strongly suggest that she is capable of serving all

11

defendants named in the amended complaint.2 Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an order

12

directing the marshal to complete service of process (ECF No. 14) is denied.

13

DATED: April 8, 2017.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

At this time, the court makes no findings as to the sufficiency of service of process on
defendants Yuba County, Jeremy Strange, and Chris Monaco.
2