Garnica v. Washington Department of Corrections, et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 18 MOTION for Service, signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom. (GMR- cc: pltf this order and IFP Application)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

3
4
5

MARCO GARNICA,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

CASE NO. C12-5544 RJB-KLS

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SERVICE

v.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, ELDON VAIL,
RONALD FRAKER, BRENT CARNEY,
JAY A JACKSON, JAMIE CALLEY,
Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by U.S. Marshal. ECF No. 18.

13 Plaintiff requests that the Court issue summons and direct the U.S. Marshal to serve the
14 summons and complaint in this matter on Defendants Ronald Fraker and Jamie Calley. Plaintiff
15 will also seek to have Defendants Jay Jackson and Brent Carney similarly served after he obtains
16 their addresses. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff originally filed his lawsuit in Thurston County Superior
17 Court and it was transferred to this Court by Defendant Washington Department of Corrections.
18 ECF No. 1. He has not been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court.
19

DISCUSSION

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (c)(3) provides:

21

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.

22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SERVICE- 1

1

The rule allows the Court to order service by the Marshal when requested, and mandates

2 it for in forma pauperis prisoner plaintiffs proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Although
3 Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the state court, he has not requested
4 nor been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case in this Court. Therefore, he
5 must submit the appropriate application before the Court may consider his motion for service.
6

In addition, an in forma pauperis plaintiff still bears the burden of providing accurate and

7 sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint. When a pro se plaintiff
8 fails to provide the court with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the
9 summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendant is
10 appropriate. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v.
11 Blanford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor,
12 515 U.S. 472 (1995). If a plaintiff requires additional time to research and effect service, the
13 Court will consider a motion for a good cause extension of time for an appropriate period
14 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
15

Plaintiff must first apply for and be granted in forma pauperis status in this Court before

16 the Court will direct service of his complaint. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
17

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 18) is DENIED.

18

(2)

The Clerk shall send Plaintiff the appropriate forms to submit an application to

19 proceed in forma pauperis.
20

(3)

21

Dated this 24th day of September, 2012.

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

22

A

23

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SERVICE- 2