From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nance v. Boeing Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Sep 18, 2018
CASE NO. C18-988RSM (W.D. Wash. Sep. 18, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. C18-988RSM

09-18-2018

BENJAMIN EDWARD NANCE, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY U.S. MARSHAL

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Service of Summons by U.S. Marshal. Dkt. #9. Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter in forma pauperis and therefore seeks assistance with service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the motion at this time, without prejudice to re-filing.

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) 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.

The Rule requires the Court to order service by the Marshal when requested by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c); Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1991) ("An IFP plaintiff must request that the marshal serve his complaint before the marshal will be responsible for such service."). Plaintiff bears the burden of providing accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the Summons and Complaint. See Walker v. v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Plaintiff has not provided the Court with information indicating where the Marshal is to properly serve Defendant.

Accordingly, the Court declines to direct service at this time. This does not prevent Plaintiff from filing another motion for service by U.S. Marshal containing accurate service information for the Defendant. Further, if Plaintiff requires additional time to research and effect service, the Court will also consider a motion for a good cause extension of time for an appropriate period pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

III. CONCLUSION

Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion, and for the reasons stated above, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion for Service by U.S. Marshal (Dkt. #9) is DENIED.

Dated this 18 day of September, 2018.

/s/_________

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Nance v. Boeing Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Sep 18, 2018
CASE NO. C18-988RSM (W.D. Wash. Sep. 18, 2018)
Case details for

Nance v. Boeing Co.

Case Details

Full title:BENJAMIN EDWARD NANCE, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Date published: Sep 18, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. C18-988RSM (W.D. Wash. Sep. 18, 2018)