Opinion
6:22-cv-1886-CEM-LHP
11-10-2022
SYED IBRAHIM HUSSAIN, SYED MUHAMMAD BAQIR HUSSAIN, SYEDA SARA HUSSAIN, BRIAN GUEX and ROSELENE GUEX, Plaintiffs, v. H. JAMES STADELMAN, INTERVAL TITLE SERVICES, INC., JONATHAN BLOOM, KHALID MUNEER, JUPITER PROPERTIES, INC., JERRY LADELLE SESSIONS, II, PRIME INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES, LLC, PRIME INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES DUVAL, LLC, PRIME INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES CLAY, INC., FAMILY MEDICINE AND REHAB, INC. and SYED SAJID HUSSAIN, Defendants
ORDER
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 13, 2022, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants which, in sum, alleges conspiracy resulting in an order of eviction and writ of possession to remove Plaintiffs from their residence. Doc. No. 1. See also Doc. No. 8. On November 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking three forms of relief: (1) Temporary Restraining Order with Order to Show Cause, (2) Stay of Execution on Writ of Possession, and (3) Order to Rapidly Locate and Serve Defendant Jerry Sessions via U.S. Marshal, Deputy Marshal, or Special Appointee. Doc. No. 7. Upon consideration, the Court denied the first two requests as barred under the Younger abstention doctrine. See Doc. No. 8. But, to the extent that the motion requests that the United States Marshal serve Defendant Sessions, the Court referred the motion to the undersigned for disposition. See Id. at 3-4.
On review, the request for the United States Marshal to serve Defendant Sessions will be DENIED without prejudice. First, the request fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) because it does include a memorandum of legal authority in support. See Doc. No. 7, at 3, 6, 64-66. Second, to the extent that Plaintiffs are requesting service by the United States Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), Plaintiffs have not established such process is necessary. See generally Prosperous v. Todd, No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP, 2017 WL 2291367, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 25, 2017) (“[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 also Nappi v. Welcom Prod., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-3183-T-33TGW, 2014 WL 2050826, at * (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2014) (denying motion for service by the United States Marshal where the plaintiff was not authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, and there was no indication that appointing the United States Marshal under Rule 4(c)(3) would result in a different outcome than utilizing a private process server).
Plaintiffs reference exhibits attached to the motion to state that Mr. Sessions has been evading service. See Doc. No. 7, at 7. But, from those exhibits, it appears that Plaintiffs have only been attempting service on Defendant Sessions since October 23, 2022. See id. at 49-53.
Any renewed request for service by the United States Marshal must include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rule 3.01(a) and demonstrate entitlement to the relief sought.
DONE and ORDERED.