United States of America et al v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al

Filing 6

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. denying 5 Motion for Appointment of Person to Serve Process. (BG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, for the use and
benefit of H.M.E. and H.M.E. Inc. Individually

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland,
et. al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Case No. 1:16-cv-004

Before the court is plaintiffs’ “Motion for Appointment of Person to Serve Process.”
Plaintiffs’ request that the court appoint Frank Slapikas, Jr. as a Special Process Server in this case
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), which provides: “At the plaintiff's request, the court may order
that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially
appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.”
Absent an explicit mandate to appointment a process server, it is generally accepted that the
court appointment of a process server “will be necessary only when the process server needs to be
invested with the authority that accompanies a court order.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Weir, 531 F.
Supp.2d 674, 679 (E.D.N.C. 2008) (quoting 4A Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice & Procedure § 1091 (3d ed.2002)); cf. Zarro v. Spitzer, No. 1:06–CV–1166, 2008 WL
4399442, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2008) (recognizing that, when not explicitly mandated, the
appointment of a special process server is left to the court’s discretion).
Plaintiffs are neither a seaman nor proceeding in forma pauperis. Moreover they neither

1

assert that Mr. Slapikas needs special court authority to accomplish service nor indicate why special
authority is necessary. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Weir, 531 F. Supp.2d at 679. Rather, they merely
requests the appointment of Frank Slapikas, Jr. as a process server. Plaintiffs’ motion (Docket No.
5) is therefore DENIED. No court order is necessary to allow Slapikas to serve process, but if
plaintiffs feels that special court authority is needed, it must describe the reasons supporting its
motion with particularity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of February, 2016.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

2