Matthew Beasley v. United States of America, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJanuary 9, 2026
Docket2:24-cv-00368
StatusUnknown

This text of Matthew Beasley v. United States of America, et al. (Matthew Beasley v. United States of America, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matthew Beasley v. United States of America, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7 * * *

8 Matthew Beasley, Case No. 2:24-cv-00368-APG-BNW

9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v.

11 United States of America, et al.,

12 Defendants.

13 14 Though this Court previously directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Defendants 15 United States Attorney for the District of Nevada and Attorney General of the United States, 16 Plaintiff has since amended his complaint. ECF Nos. 10 and 32. In the amended complaint, 17 Plaintiff names the previously unidentified special agent defendants. ECF No. 32. Thus, he seeks 18 an order from this Court directing the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the newly named 19 defendants: Grahm Coder, Robert Scott, and James Mollica, Jr. ECF No. 43. 20 When a party proceeds in forma pauperis the court “shall issue and serve all process.” 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir. 1990) (“a party proceeding in 22 forma pauperis is entitled to have the summons and complaint served by the U.S. Marshal.”).1 23 Here, Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis and is therefore entitled to the Court’s aid. See ECF 24 25

26 1 Section 1915(d) dovetails with Rule 4, which provides that upon the request of a plaintiff 27 authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court “must” order “that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy or by a person specifically appointed by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. 1 |} No. 10. Accordingly, this Court will issue summonses for Defendants Coder, Scott, and Mollica, 2 || and direct the U.S. Marshal’s Service to attempt service upon them. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion requesting service (ECF No. 43) 4 || is GRANTED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to: (1) issue 6 || summonses for Defendants Grahm Coder, Robert Scott, and James Mollica, Jr.; (2) deliver the 7 || summonses, three copies of the operative complaint (ECF No. 32), and a copy of this Order to the 8 || U.S. Marshal for service; and (3) mail Plaintiff three blank copies of Form USM-285. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until February 2, 2026, in which to 10 || send the U.S. Marshals Service the required USM-285 forms. On the forms, Plaintiff must fill in 11 || Defendants’ last-known addresses. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of the USM-285 forms, the U.S. Marshal 13 || shall, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), attempt service on Defendants 14 || Grahm Coder, Robert Scott, and James Mollica, Jr. 15 16 DATED: January 9, 2026 17 Li mw lr are fat BRENDA WEKSLER 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Puett v. Blandford
912 F.2d 270 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Matthew Beasley v. United States of America, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-beasley-v-united-states-of-america-et-al-nvd-2026.