Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brent Allan Winters v. Delores Jordan

April 10, 2012

BRENT ALLAN WINTERS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DELORES JORDAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiffs are proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in this action, and service of process has, for the most part, been effectuated through the United States Marshals Service.*fn1 The United States Marshals Service, Civil Division ("Marshal") has requested reimbursement of its expenses incurred in connection with its personal service on the following defendants:

1. Dewey Harpainter (see Dkt. Nos. 124-25);

2. Sean Metroka, Teresa Long, Candace Heidelberger, Thomas Anderson, Delores Spindler, Hilary Berardi (formerly known as Hilary Burget), Audrey Golden, Connie Beckett, and Kiera Jefferson (hereinafter, "Judicial Defendants") (see Dkt. No. 128);

Case 2:09-cv-00522-JAM -KJN Document 334 Filed 04/11/12 Page 2 of 4

3. Sue Roderick, Donald R. Staggs, Kathy Hammen McBride (a.k.a. Kathy Jo McBride), Jan Paul Miller, Steven Tinsley, (hereinafter, Federal Defendants") (see Dkt. Nos. 139-40, 157-62, 172-73, 191-92, 195-96); and

4. John Taylor (see Dkt. Nos. 141-42).

After granting plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the Second Amended Complaint, the court ordered plaintiffs to "complete service of process of their Third Amended Complaint, as set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4." (Order, Aug. 24, 2009, Dkt. No. 56.) It appears that plaintiffs, who are proceeding in forma pauperis, used the Marshal to effectuate service of the Third Amended Complaint and process on certain named defendants, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3).

In regards to Harpainter, the Judicial Defendants, the Federal Defendants, and Taylor, the Marshal seeks reimbursement for the costs incurred in effectuating personal service. Other than the Judicial Defendants, none of the other defendants had yet appeared in the action prior to entry of the court's order regarding service of the Third Amended Complaint.

In regards to waivers of service, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) provides, in relevant part:

(d) Waiving Service.

(1) Requesting a Waiver. 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. The plaintiff may notify such a defendant that an action has been commenced and request that the defendant waive service of a summons. . . .

(2) Failure to Waive. 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.