Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01836/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01836-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON RAISER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HON. TIMOTHY CASSERLY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

ORDER (1) DENYING REQUEST 

FOR SERVICE BY A UNITED 

STATES MARSHAL, AND 

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS

(ECF Nos. 59, 60)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve 

Summons and Complaint and Application for Service by a United States Marshal (ECF 

No. 59), and Plaintiff’s Emergency Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Serve 

Summons and Complaint and for U.S. Marshal Service (ECF No. 60).1 

First, Plaintiff requests the Court order a United States marshal to serve Defendants 

Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell, 

and Associate Justices Patricia D. Benke, Richard D. Huffman, and Terry B. O’Rourke

 

1 Because Plaintiff seeks the same relief in both motions, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Ex 

Parte Application (ECF No 60). 

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 61 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(together, the “Judicial Defendants”). Plaintiff asserts he is unable to serve the Judicial 

Defendants because he has been suffering from health issues and the cost of service has 

become prohibitive. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), the Court may, at the plaintiff’s 

request, “order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a 

person specially appointed by the court.” “If the plaintiff is not proceeding in forma 

pauperis or as a seaman,” as is the case here, “the decision” of whether to direct service by 

a United States marshal “falls within the discretion of the court.” Bax v. Exec. Office for 

U.S. Attorneys, 216 F.R.D. 4, 4 (D.D.C. 2003). Before exercising this discretion, however, 

the Court should require “that a plaintiff requesting service by the United States Marshal 

first must attempt service by some other means authorized by Rule 4.” Id. (citing Jones v. 

Goodman, No. CIV. A. 91-7560, 1992 WL 185634, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 1992); Wright 

& Miller, 4A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1090 (4th ed.)). 

Here, Plaintiff “has not attempted service by other means,” id. at 4–5, such as

requesting waiver of service under Rule 4(d). The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request for service by a United States marshal (ECF No. 59). 

Second, Plaintiff requests the Court extend the time for him to serve the Judicial 

Defendants. The Court previously granted Plaintiff until March 6, 2020, to serve the 

Judicial Defendants. Plaintiff asserts he cannot meet that deadline because of his declining 

health and the cost of service. So that Plaintiff may attempt service by other means, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 59) as it pertains to extending time for 

service. Plaintiff SHALL SERVE the Judicial Defendants and file appropriate proof of 

service with the Court by May 7, 2020. “If [Plaintiff] demonstrates to the court’s 

satisfaction that he is unable to serve the [Judicial Defendants] with the complaint and 

summons through other authorized means, [Plaintiff] may re-file his motion for service by 

the United States Marshal.” Bax, 216 F.R.D. at 5. Failure to properly serve Defendants 

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 61 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by this time may result in this case being dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 61 Filed 03/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3