PAYNE
v.
MUNYON
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.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for service by U.S. Marshal because the plaintiff paid the filing fee and did not demonstrate necessity for such service.
The pro se plaintiff requested service of process by the U.S. Marshals Service, citing lack of resources, security concerns, and the defendants' statu…
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 28 U.S.C. § 1915 cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Service by U.S. Marshal. Doc. No. 7. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asks that the Court authorize service by the United States Marshals Service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), stating that she "lacks institutional or financial resources to coordinate service;" "personal service by the Plaintiff raises serious security and ethical concerns;" and given that the named Defendants “are current or former judicial officers or employees of the State of Florida." Id. at 1. Upon review, the motion (Doc. No. 7) will be DENIED without prejudice.
Rule 4(c)(3) provides that "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."
Here, because Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the court is not obligated to order that service be made by a United States Marshal. See Somerville v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 6:24-cv-2185-JSS-EJK, 2024 WL 5090233, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2024). And "although Rule 4(c)(3) . . . gives the [c]ourt discretion to order the United States Marshal to serve civil process, the Advisory Committee Notes state that [such] appointment . . . is generally proper when it is necessary to keep the peace." Id. (citing Nappi v. Welcom Prods., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-3183-T-33TGW, 2014 WL 2050826, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2014)). That circumstance is not present here, and Plaintiff's motion does not establish why service by the United States Marshal is necessary, given that there are available avenues for Plaintiff to effect service, to include retaining a private process server or requesting that Defendants waive service. See Prosperous v. Todd, No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP, 2017 WL 2291367, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 25, 2017) (denying Rule 4(c)(3) motion for same reason); see also GMAC Real Est., LLC v. Waterfront Realty Grp., Inc., No. 2:09-cv-546-FtM-36SPC, 2010 WL 2465170, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2010) (denying motion to appoint special process server where “Plaintiff has provided no factual basis for why a court order is necessary to accomplish service of process and does not include any legal authority in support of its Motion other than Rule 4(c)(3)").
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 17, 2025.
Leslie Hoffman Price
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Somerville v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2014 WL 2050826 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
- Moore v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 2023 WL 7182358 (M.D. Fla. 2023)
- Terrell v. Woodard, 2024 WL 5090233 (M.D. Fla. 2025)