Williams v. Romero et al
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/6/2018 DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 19 motion for an order directing US Marshal to effect service. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LANCE WILLIAMS,
12
No. 2:17-cv-1884 TLN DB P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ROMERO, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
After the court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, on March 27, 2018,
19
plaintiff paid the filing fee to proceed with this case. In an order filed April 6, 2018, plaintiff was
20
informed that he must complete service of process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
21
Procedure 4 within sixty days. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was provided with summonses for
22
purposes of service of process.
23
Plaintiff now moves the court for an order directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service for
24
him under Rule 4(c)(3), which provides that the court “may” order service by the Marshal.
25
Plaintiff argues that because he is indigent and incarcerated, he is unable to pay the $120 fee
26
required by the Sheriff’s office to serve the summonses and complaint. (ECF No. 19.)
27
According to the 1993 Advisory Committee Note to Rule 4 (c), instances where the court should
28
appoint a marshal or deputy or other official person to make service include situations where a
1
1
law enforcement presence appears to be necessary or advisable to keep the peace, or in actions
2
brought by the United States. Further, the court will consider whether other reasonable methods
3
of effecting service privately have been exhausted.
4
Here, plaintiff has not shown that he has attempted to secure a waiver of service pursuant
5
to Rule 4(d). If plaintiff is unsuccessful in obtaining a waiver of service under Rule 4(d), he may
6
file a renewed motion for an order directing the Marshal to effect service. Plaintiff is reminded
7
that the court’s April 6 order gave him 60 days to effect service. Therefore, plaintiff must attempt
8
to obtain a waiver of service as soon as possible or he must seek an extension of time to do so.
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 29, 2018 Motion for Order
10
Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service (ECF No. 19) is denied without prejudice.
11
Dated: June 6, 2018
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DLB:9
DB/prisoner-civil rights/will1884.rule 4
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?