EDWIN ENCARNACION ALAMO
v.
POPULAR SECURITIES, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pro se plaintiff Edwin Encarnacion Alamo sought service of process by United States Marshals Service in a civil action against Popular Securities, LLC. The District Court denied the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with local rules and failure to establish necessity for such service.
A motion for service by United States Marshals Service must comply with Local Rule 3.01(b) by including a memorandum of legal authority, and the plaintiff must provide a factual basis demonstrating why appointment of the United States Marshal is necessary to accomplish service. Pro se litigants are not exempt from compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules.
[1] A motion for service by the United States Marshals Service must include a memorandum of legal authority in support.
[2] A plaintiff requesting service by the United States Marshal must provide a factual basis for why a court order is necessary to accomplish service.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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”
Establishes the requirement that plaintiffs must demonstrate necessity for appointment of the United States Marshal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Alamo, proceeding pro se, filed a motion requesting service of process by the United States Marshals Service. The motion did not include a m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Memorandum Of Legal Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is pro se Petitioner's Motion for Service by United States Marshals Service. Doc. No. 4. On review, the motion (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice.
First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(b) because it does not include a memorandum of legal authority in support. Id. Second, to the extent that Plaintiff is requesting service by the United States Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), Plaintiff has 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 *2 (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).
Any renewed request for service by the United States Marshal must include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rule 3.01(b) and demonstrate entitlement to the relief sought. Plaintiff is cautioned that although he proceeds pro se, all filings in this matter must comply with the Local Rules of this Court, Court Orders, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 836 (11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se litigant "is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989); Doc. No. 2.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 12, 2026.
Uslis Horan Price LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties
-2-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Moon v. Newsome, 493 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1989)