SOMERVILLE
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
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.
In this pro se civil case, the plaintiff moved for appointment of a U.S. Marshal to effect service of process, citing a broken arm and alleged difficulties locating defendants. The District Court denied the motion, holding that marshals are appointed only for in forma pauperis parties or seamen, and discretionary appointment is appropriate only to keep the peace—a circumstance absent here.
The court denied plaintiff's motion for marshal service. Although Rule 4(c)(3) gives the court discretion to order U.S. Marshal service, such appointment is generally proper only when necessary to keep the peace, a circumstance not present here. Plaintiff's broken arm and assertions about difficulty locating defendants do not constitute grounds for discretionary appointment.
[1] A court is only obligated to appoint a U.S. …
[2] A court has discretion to order service by a U.S. …
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“the court is only obligated to appoint a U.S. Marshal to effect service of process if the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis or as a seaman”
Establishes the narrow circumstances triggering mandatory marshal appointment under Rule 4(c)(3)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff, proceeding pro se and having paid her filing fee, filed suit against the Department of Health and Human Services, Roger B. Handberg, the Un…
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 Seaman Status cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moves the court to appoint a U.S. Marshal to effect service of process. (Dkt. 9.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) provides that “the court may order service be made by a United States marshal.” However, the court is only obligated to appoint a U.S. Marshal to effect service of process if the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis or as a seaman. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Because Plaintiff has paid her filing fee, the court is not obligated to order service be made by a United States Marshal.
Plaintiff states that she requires a Marshal to effect service of process “because [she] broke her arm . . . after filing suit and is not well enough to research and execute effective Service of Process.” (Dkt. 9 at 1.) However, “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, a circumstance not present in the instant case,” Nappi v. Welcom Prods., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-3183-T-33TGW, 2014 WL 2050826, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2014) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff's protestations that Defendants may be "difficult for a typical process server" to locate and serve are unavailing both because she does not indicate that she has yet attempted to serve process, nor does she explain why a U.S. Marshal would not suffer from the same difficulties. (Dkt. 9 at 1); see id. ("[T]he [c]ourt finds no indication that appointing a U.S. Marshal under Rule 4(c)(3) would result in any more success than [the plaintiff]'s private process servers have already experienced.").
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Marshal Service of Process for Summons and Complaint (Dkt. 9) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on December 12, 2024.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Somerville v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2014 WL 2050826 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…erve civil process, the Advisory Committee Notes state that [such] appointment . . . is generally proper when it is necessary to keep the peace, a circumstance not present in the instant case,” Nappi v. Welcom Prods., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-3183-T-33TGW, 2014 WL 2050826, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2014) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff’s protestations that Defendants may be “difficult for a typical process server” to locate and serve are unavailing both because she does not indicate that she has yet attempted to serve…
-
Polisi v. DeSantis (M.D. Fla. 2025)…der 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 incl…
-
Polisi v. DeSantis (M.D. Fla. 2025)…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 incl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Somerville v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2014 WL 2050826 (M.D. Fla. 2024)