Lopez v. Salloum et al
ORDER denying 9 MOTION Request for Service of Summons. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on April 19, 2017. (jg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JOSE DE PAZ LOPEZ
CASE NO. 5:17-CV-18-DCB-MTP
ELLIS J. SALLOUM M.D. ET AL.
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion  for Request for Service of
Summons on the Defendants. The Plaintiff requests that the Marshalls serve process on the
Defendants in this action as he is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
However, Plaintiff is not proceeding IFP under § 1915, as he paid the initial filing fee. See
Docket Entry of March 8, 2017.
Rule 4(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that upon 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.” (emphasis added). However, court officers
are only required to serve process under Rule 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) for plaintiffs who
have obtained in forma pauperis status. See Cornish v. Tex. Bd. of Criminal Justice, 141 F.
App’x 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Rule 4 requires the district court to appoint a person to serve
process in an IFP case.”); Powell v. Biloxi Police Dep’t, 2011 WL 2457857, *1 at n. 1 (S.D.
Miss. May 23, 2011) (“Because Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915, the Court and the U.S. Marshal’s office have no obligation to assist Plaintiff with
service of process) (citations omitted); Hearron v. Mississippi Dep’t of Corrections, 2008 WL
4861952, *2 at n. 2 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 10, 2008).
Although the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is not proceeding as a pauper IFP. Plaintiff
paid the $400 filing fee in this action. Additionally, the current motion indicates that he has
$162.65 in his prison account. See  at 5. He also indicates that he receives money from family
or friends, but does not specify the amount. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff has the option to hire a third party to serve the Defendants, and has already been
advised that it is his responsibility to ensure process is served in this case. See Memorandum .
The funds in Plaintiff’s account are more than sufficient to accomplish service of process. It is
the Plaintiff’s responsibility, not the Court’s, to effect service in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the Plaintiff has not established good cause for appointing a
process server in this case, his motion is not well taken and is hereby denied.1
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of April, 2017.
/s/MICHAEL T. PARKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Defendants
must be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed.
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?