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