Davis v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 3 Request for Service by U.S. Marshal Service. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 4/13/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GAVIN B. DAVIS,
Case No. 17-cv-0701 DMS (AGS)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR SERVICE BY
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
On April 6, 2017, Plaintiff Gavin B. Davis, proceeding pro se, filed a
complaint against Defendants Federal Bureau of Investigation and John Gregory
Unruh and paid the required filing fee. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a document
entitled “Request for U.S. Marshall [sic] for Service on Defendant Greg for Cause.”
In the document, Plaintiff requests that the United States Marshals Service
(“USMS”) effect service on Defendant John Gregory Unruh. The Court construes
this document as a request for service of the summons and complaint by the USMS,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). For the reasons set forth below,
the Court denies this request.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) provides that “[a]t the plaintiff’s
request, the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or
17-cv-0701 DMS (AGS)
deputy marshal....” If a court has authorized a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1916, the
court must order service by the USMS. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Here, however,
Plaintiff is not proceeding IFP because he has paid the full filing fee when he
initiated the present action, nor is he proceeding as a seaman.
A court has discretion under Rule (4)(3) to order Marshals’ service of a non-
IFP complaint “‘in certain limited circumstances as when a hostile defendant
threatens injury to the process server.’” Hoffart v. Washington Mut. Bank, Nat.
Ass’n, No. CV 12-10465-E, 2013 WL 2445019, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2013)
(quoting Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1090, p. 476 (3rd ed.
2002)). Plaintiff, however, has not made any such showing.
Although the Court may afford Plaintiff “more latitude than litigants
represented by counsel to correct defects in service of process and pleadings,” Moore
v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.C.Cir.1993), it need not impose the
duty of service process on the USMS “because a pro se litigant has failed to
successfully serve his complaint due to ignorance or misunderstanding of the rules
regulating service.” Vahidallah v. Chase Bank, No. 13CV590-MMA BLM, 2013
WL 3777181, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2013). 1 Accordingly, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s request for service by USMS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2017
In support of the request for service by the USMS, Plaintiff attached an affidavit
of service, indicating a process server attempted to serve Plaintiff’s opening brief on
November 25, 2016, which is irrelevant to the present action. Plaintiff also included
proof of attempted service, showing that Plaintiff has attempted service of the
complaint and summons in an unrelated action.
17-cv-0701 DMS (AGS)
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?