Aerick Wayne Shorty v. J. Hill, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied without prejudice a state prisoner’s request for service by a U.S. Marshal because he was not proceeding in forma pauperis and had not attempted service by other authorized means. The court reissued summonses for the remaining defendants and directed the Clerk to provide waiver-of-service forms and copies of the complaint. The court extended the service deadline to October 1, 2025.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff who pays the filing fee is generally responsible for effectuating service, and service by a United States Marshal under Rule 4(c)(3) is discretionary rather than automatic.
2. A fee-paying plaintiff seeking U.S. Marshal service must first attempt service by other means authorized by Rule 4, or explain the efforts made and why Marshal service is necessary.
3. Plaintiff had ninety days from completion of the screening process to effectuate service, making the deadline October 1, 2025.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a plaintiff who paid the filing fee and did not proceed in forma pauperis was entitled to service by a United States Marshal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3).
2. Whether Plaintiff's incarceration and alleged difficulty arranging service justified ordering U.S. Marshal service without a prior attempt at service by other authorized means.
3. What time period Plaintiff had to effectuate service after completion of screening.

Disposition

other