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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?