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.

Becker v. Carney

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

January 19, 2017

ASHER JAMES BECKER, Plaintiff,
v.
BRENT CARNEY et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE AND ORDER DIRECTING PERSONAL SERVICE OF DEFENDANT WILLIAMSON

          J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge

         This is 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.

         On 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.

         The 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.

         With 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 Procedure 4(d)(2).

         Accordingly the undersigned ORDERS as follows:

         (1) Service by United States Marshal

         Plaintiff's 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 personal service.

         (2) Response Required

         Within 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.

         (3) Filing and Service by Parties, Generally

         All 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.

         Any 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.

         (4) Non-St ...


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.