Prosperous v. Todd et al

Filing 84

ORDER: Prosperous's construed Rule 4(c)(3) motion (Doc. # 79 ) is DENIED. Prosperous's motion for leave to use CM/ECF (Doc. # 80 ) is GRANTED. Prosperous is directed to register for a CM/ECF account (login and password) with the assis tance of the Clerk's Office as detailed herein. Properous's motion to amend a defendant's name (Doc. # 82 ) is GRANTED to the extent that the Court previously granted Prosperous leave to file a second amended complaint, which is due by June 19, 2017. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/25/2017. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALEXANDRA LOVE PROSPEROUS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP

KIMBERLY TODD, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
three motions filed by Plaintiff Alexandra Love Prosperous,
who

is

proceeding

pro

se.

Prosperous

seeks

the

Court’s

“authorization to use [the United States Marshals Service]
for

delivery

of

summons”

(Doc.

#

79),

which

the

Court

construes as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(c)(3). Prosperous also seeks leave to use the Court’s CM/ECF
filing system and leave to correct a defendant’s name. (Doc.
## 80, 82). The Court denies the construed Rule 4(c)(3)
motion, but grants the motion to use CM/ECF and the motion to
amend a defendant’s name as specified below.
A.

Service by Marshal

By her motion, Prosperous “request[s] [the] court’s
authorization

to

use

[the]

US

marshals

for

delivery

of

summons.” (Doc. # 79 at 1). The Court construes this motion
as a motion made under Rule 4(c)(3), which states that, “[a]t
the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be
made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a
person specifically appointed by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(3). Because Prosperous has paid her filing fee, the Court
is not obligated to order service be made by a United States
marshal. Cf. Id. (“The court must so order if the plaintiff
is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915.”).
“[A]lthough Rule 4(c)(3) . . . gives the Court discretion
to order the United States Marshal to serve civil process,
the Advisory Committee Notes state that [such] appointment .
. . is generally proper when it is necessary to keep the
peace, a circumstance not present in the instant case.” Nappi
v. Welcom Prods., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-3183-T-33TGW, 2014 WL
2050826, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2014) (citation omitted).
In addition, a plaintiff requesting appointment of the United
States

Marshal

in

order

to

comply

with

the

service

requirements of Rule 4 must provide a factual basis for why
a court order is necessary to accomplish service. See, e.g.,
GMAC Real Estate, LLC v. Waterfront Realty Grp., Inc., No.

2 

2:09-cv-546-FtM-36SPC, 2010 WL 2465170, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June
10, 2010).
While Prosperous indicates she “used [the] US marshals
service for delivery of summons in this case previously” and
“paid the US marshals service for delivery of summons in this
case,” there is no indication that appointment of the United
States Marshals service is necessary to keep the peace.
Likewise, there is no indication for why a Court order is
necessary to accomplish service. Rule 4 provides several ways
of effecting service and allows a plaintiff to request waiver
of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), (e). Thus, to the extent
Prosperous requests that this Court order the United States
Marshal or a deputy marshal to act as her process server under
Rule 4(c)(3), the motion is denied. The Court, however, notes
there are several alternatives available to Prosperous, for
example she may retain a private process server or she may
request the defendants waive service.
B.

Use of CM/ECF

The Court authorizes Prosperous’s use of CM/ECF in this
action. Prosperous is directed to visit the Court’s website
and register for CM/ECF accounts (login and password) with
the assistance of the Clerk’s office. Prosperous is directed
to contact Ariel Guzman at [phone] for assistance.
3 

Once Prosperous receives her CM/ECF account, she is directed
to utilize the Court’s electronic case management filing
system when filing any document with the Court.
Prosperous is cautioned that she must comply with the
Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Administrative Procedures
for Electronic Filing. The Court directs Prosperous to review
these rules prior to filing any document on CM/ECF. Additional
information regarding CM/ECF is available on the Court’s
website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov.
C.

Amending a Defendant’s Name

Prosperous seeks leave to change a defendant’s name.
(Doc. # 82). Specifically, Prosperous seeks to change the St.
Petersburg Police Department to the proper entity, which is
the

City

of

St.

Petersburg.

(Id.).

The

Court

grants

Propserous’s motion to the extent that the Court previously
granted her leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc.
# 78). If and when Prosperous elects to file a second amended
complaint, she may correct the defendant’s name from the St.
Petersburg Police Department to the City of St. Petersburg.
The Court reminds Prosperous that the deadline for filing a
second amended complaint is June 19, 2017.
Accordingly, it is
4 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Prosperous’s construed Rule 4(c)(3) motion (Doc. # 79)
is DENIED.

(2)

Prosperous’s motion for leave to use CM/ECF (Doc. # 80)
is GRANTED. Prosperous is directed to register for a
CM/ECF account (login and password) with the assistance
of the Clerk’s Office as detailed herein.

(3)

Properous’s motion to amend a defendant’s name (Doc. #
82) is GRANTED to the extent that the Court previously
granted

Prosperous

leave

to

file

a

second

amended

complaint, which is due by June 19, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
25th day of May, 2017.

5