From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andreozzi v. California Department of Corrections

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 17, 2012
CIV S-09-1192-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)

Opinion


LEROY ARTHER ANDREOZZI, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. No. CIV S-09-1192-JAM-CMK-P United States District Court, E.D. California. January 17, 2012

ORDER

CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the United States Marshal's request for reimbursement of costs of personal service (Doc. 25).

The court ordered the United States Marshal to serve process upon the defendant(s) in this case. The Marshal was directed to attempt to secure a waiver of service before attempting personal service on any defendant. If a waiver of service was not returned within sixty days, the Marshal was directed to effect personal service on the defendant in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 566(c), without prepayment of costs, and to file the return of service with evidence of any attempt to secure a waiver of service and with evidence of all costs subsequently incurred in effecting personal service.

On November 23, 2010, the United States Marshal filed a return of service with a USM-285 form showing total charges of $90.00 for effecting personal service on defendant Lesane. The form shows that a waiver of service form was mailed to the defendant on June 10, 2010, and that no response was received. The request for reimbursement was filed the same day. On January 19, 2011, following the filing of an answer by defendant Lesane, the court required defendant Lesane to respond to the request for reimbursement within 30 days. No response from the defendant was received as ordered.

Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons....

If a defendant located within the United States fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court must impose on the defendant:

(A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and

(B) the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, of any motion required to collect those service expenses.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), (2).

The court finds that defendant Lesane was given the opportunity required by Rule 4(d) to waive service and has failed to show good cause for the failure to comply with the request.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The United States Marshal's request for reimbursement of costs of service (Doc. 25) is granted;

2. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, defendant Lesane shall pay to the United States Marshal the sum of $90.00; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United States Marshal.


Summaries of

Andreozzi v. California Department of Corrections

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 17, 2012
CIV S-09-1192-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Andreozzi v. California Department of Corrections

Case Details

Full title:LEROY ARTHER ANDREOZZI, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 17, 2012

Citations

CIV S-09-1192-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)