Johnson v. Nordstrom

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 AMANDA JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01813-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. SERVICE 13 NORDSTROM et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Amanda Johnson’s “Motion the Court to 17 Service the Defendant[s].” Dkt. No. 24. Her one sentence motion states that she is “motioning the 18 court to serve all of the defendant[s].” Id. at 1. The Court construes the motion as a request that 19 the Court order the U.S. Marshals to serve her amended complaint. 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), “[a]t the plaintiff’s request, the court may 21 order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially 22 appointed by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). But the court is not obligated to do so unless the 23 plaintiff is “authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman under 24 28 U.S.C. § 1916.” Id. Ms. Johnson has paid the filing fee and is not proceeding in forma pauperis 1 or as a seaman. See Nov. 28, 2023 Docket Entry. The Court therefore is not required to order 2 service. 3 When a plaintiff has paid the filing fee, Rule 4(c)(3) “vests the Court with discretion to 4 order service.” Chan v. Ryan, No. 22-CV-01796-LK, 2023 WL 197429, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan.

5 17, 2023). “This discretion is exercised only in limited circumstances, such as when a law 6 enforcement presence appears necessary or advisable to keep the peace or when a hostile defendant 7 threatens injury to the process server.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiffs 8 seeking court-ordered service should set forth what steps they have already taken to accomplish 9 service and explain why a court order is necessary. Id. Here, Ms. Johnson does not explain what 10 steps, if any, she has taken to accomplish service or why she needs the Court’s assistance to do so. 11 The Court therefore declines to order service, see Davis v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. C23- 12 1838-JLR, 2024 WL 1023502, at *1–2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 7, 2024); Carter v. Thrasher, No. C22- 13 0050-BHS, 2022 WL 782424, at *1–2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2022), and DENIES Ms. Johnson’s 14 motion for service, Dkt. No. 24.

15 Dated this 3rd day of June, 2024. 16 A 17 Lauren King United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24