United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE AND ORDER
DIRECTING PERSONAL SERVICE OF DEFENDANT WILLIAMSON
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge
a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff is proceeding with this action pro
se and in forma pauperis. The undersigned
ordered service of the second amended complaint on defendant
Williamson on August 4, 2016. Dkt. 14. Waivers of service
were due September 9, 2016. See docket entry dated
August 4, 2016. To date, Mr. Williamson has not returned a
waiver of service. See Dkt. Defense counsel has not
appeared on behalf of Mr. Williamson. See Dkt.
November 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to order personal
service on Mr. Williamson by the United States Marshal,
because Mr. Williamson had not returned the signed waiver of
service within the 30-day time period to do so. Dkt. 40.
However, rather than ordering service by the United States
Marshal, the undersigned instead directed defendants to file
Mr. Williamson's last known address under seal, so that
the Clerk's Office could attempt to effect service by
mail. Dkt. 49. On January 12, 2017, defendants filed Mr.
Williamson's last known address under seal. Dkt. 54.
undersigned was notified by the Clerk's Office that in
another case in this Court, Vincent v. Stewart, Case
No. 16-5023-RBL-KLS, service by mail was recently attempted
at Mr. Williamson's residential address, but the waiver
was returned to the Court marked “no mail
receptacle/unable to forward.” See Vincent v.
Stewart, Case No. 16-5023-RBL-KLS at Dkt. 41 (Disclosure
of Service Address of Defendant Williams Under Seal), Dkt. 44
(Return of Service Unexecuted). Thus, the undersigned finds
that another attempt to serve Mr. Williamson via mail at the
same residential address would be futile. Accordingly, the
undersigned deems service by the United States Marshal on
defendant Williamson to be appropriate, and plaintiff's
motion (Dkt. 40) is granted. If possible, personal service on
defendant Williamson in this case, and Vincent v.
Stewart, Case No. 16-5023-RBL-KLS, should be attempted
at the same time in order to save resources.
respect to the costs of service, because it appears that
defendant Williamson did not receive the service packet
requesting he waive personal service, the undersigned finds
good cause for why the cost of personal service should not be
assessed on defendant Williamson under Federal Rule of Civil
the undersigned ORDERS as follows:
Service by United States Marshal
motion to serve defendant Williamson via the United States
Marshall (Dkt. 40) is GRANTED. The United
States Marshal is ORDERED to personally
serve the summons and complaint together with a copy of this
Order upon defendant Williamson. The Clerk shall issue
summons and assemble the necessary documents to effect this
twenty (20) days after service, defendant
Williamson shall file and serve an answer or a motion
directed to the complaint, as permitted by Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Filing and Service by Parties, Generally
attorneys admitted to practice before this Court are required
to file documents electronically via the Court's CM/ECF
system. Counsel are directed to the Court's website,
www.wawd.uscourts.gov, for a detailed description of the
requirements for filing via CM/ECF. Plaintiff shall file all
documents electronically. All filings must indicate in the
upper right hand corner the name of the magistrate judge to
whom the document is directed.
document filed with the Court must be accompanied by proof
that it has been served upon all parties that have entered a
notice of appearance in the underlying matter. Plaintiffs
shall indicate the date the document is submitted for
e-filing as the date of service.