The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS BY REGISTERED PROCESS SERVER (Doc. No. 21)
On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Judgment Creditor") filed a motion for service by a registered process server pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4.1(a). (Doc. 21.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed this action on November 19, 2010. (Doc. 1.) Default judgment was entered against Defendant on May 24, 2011 (Doc. 16), and the case was administratively closed. On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for service by a registered process server, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1, to serve writs issued in this matter.
Rule 4.1(a) provides as follows:
(a) In General. Process--other than a summons under Rule 4 or a subpoena under Rule 45-- must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose. It may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state where the district court is located and, if authorized by a federal statute, beyond those limits. Proof of service must be made under Rule 4(l).
Here, Plaintiff seeks a court order appointing a registered process server to serve writs following judgment. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff's motion for an order permitting service by a registered process server specifically references Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1, but does not provide the identity of the registered process server Plaintiff seeks the Court to approve and appoint. The Court notes that, while Plaintiff does not seek court appointment of a registered process server to levy under a writ of execution, the failure to identify the individual to be appointed as a registered process server leaves the Court with insufficient information to grant the request. Moreover, Plaintiff does not provide citation to the correct Local Rules ("Local Rules") for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ("Eastern District") or indicate whether any California law applies to the appointment of a registered process server under these circumstances.*fn1 In sum, Plaintiff's motion is insufficient.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of a registered process server is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request and providing additional information as discussed above.