Summary
The court partially grants and partially denies Plaintiff Zak Shaik’s motion concerning service of process. It denies service by the U.S. Marshals Service but grants a permissive sixty-day extension, requiring service on the defendants by April 27, 2026.
Holdings
- The court denied plaintiff's request for service by the United States Marshals Service because plaintiff was not proceeding in forma pauperis and did not demonstrate that marshal service was necessary.
- The court granted plaintiff a permissive sixty-day extension to serve defendants, even though plaintiff failed to show good cause for the original failure to serve.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should order the United States Marshals Service to serve defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3).
- Whether the court should extend the time for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) despite plaintiff's failure to show good cause.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- Freeman v. Raytheon Techs. Corp., 2022 WL 1984163, at *2 (D. Colo. June 6, 2022)(followed)
- Palmer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 2019 WL 1118025, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2019)(followed)
- York v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2008 WL 2410416, at *2 (D. Colo. June 11, 2008)(followed)
- Towers v. Abott, 2025 WL 1114201, at *3 (D. Kan. Apr. 15, 2025)(followed)
- Bellinsky v. Galan, 2023 WL 12130692, at *2 (D. Colo. Dec. 20, 2023)(followed)
- Ovalle v. Fresno Bee Newspapers, 2009 WL 398094, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2009)(followed)
- Espinoza v. U.S., 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…