Bailey v. Fairfield Police Department, et al
Filing
32
AMENDED ORDER TAXING COSTS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/14/11 ORDERING that within 14 days from the date of this order, defendant Jacobsen shall pay to the United States Marshal the sum of $153.86, unless within that time d efendant files a written statement showing good cause for his failure to timely waive service. The court does not intend to extend this fourteen-day period. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal. (cc USM)(Dillon, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LEE JAMES BAILEY
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. 2:10-cv-02295 JAM KJN P
vs.
FAIRFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
14
AMENDED ORDER TAXING COSTS1
Defendants.
15
/
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in
18
this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States Marshal has submitted
19
a request for reimbursement of costs incurred as a result of effecting personal service on
20
defendant Jacobsen. (Dkt. No. 16.)
21
On February 15, 2011, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve
22
process upon defendants in this case. The Marshal was directed to attempt to secure a waiver of
23
service before attempting personal service on any defendant. If a waiver of service was not
24
returned within sixty days, the Marshal was directed to effect personal service on the defendant
25
1
26
The court re-issues the original order (Dkt. No. 19), in amended form, solely to correct
an internal inconsistency in the designated amount of costs due.
1
1
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28
2
U.S.C. § 566(c), without prepayment of costs, and to file the return of service with evidence of
3
any attempt to secure a waiver of service and with evidence of all costs subsequently incurred in
4
effecting personal service.
5
On July 11, 2011, the United States Marshal filed a return of service with a USM-
6
285 form, showing total charges of $153.86, for effecting personal service on defendant
7
Jacobsen. The form (Dkt. No. 17) shows that a waiver of service form was mailed to the
8
defendant on February 28, 2011, but that no response was received. On June 30, 2011, the
9
Marshal personally served defendant Jacobsen. (Id.)
10
11
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
12
An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service
under subdivision (e), (f), or (h) and that receives notice of an
action in the manner provided in this paragraph has a duty to avoid
unnecessary costs of serving the summons . . . .
13
14
If a defendant located within the United States fails to comply with
a request for waiver made by a plaintiff located within the United
States, the court shall impose the costs subsequently incurred in
effecting service on the defendant unless good cause for the failure
be shown.
15
16
17
18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).
19
The court finds that defendant Jacobsen was given the opportunity required by
20
Rule 4(d)(2) to timely waive service, and failed to comply with the request.
21
////
22
////
23
////
24
////
25
////
26
////
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, defendant Jacobsen shall pay
3
to the United States Marshal the sum of $153.86, unless within that time defendant files a written
4
statement showing good cause for his failure to timely waive service. The court does not intend
5
to extend this fourteen-day period.
6
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S.
7
Marshal.
8
DATED: November 14, 2011
9
10
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
bail2295.taxcosts.amd
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
