Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00102/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00102-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

- 1 - 10cv0086

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL R. COULTER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-0102-IEG (NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE MOTION FOR

APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE

SERVICE OF PROCESS

[Doc. No. 17]

vs.

GREGORY L. MURRELL, et al.,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Michael R. Coulter’s (“Plaintiff”) ex parte motion for

approval of alternative service of process pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. (Doc. No. 11.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies the motion. 

Plaintiff proceeding pro se requests that the Court authorize the law firm currently representing

Defendant Agda B. Shelley (“Defendant”) in a separate state court action to accept service of process

in this case on her behalf. Plaintiff has filed an accompanying declaration asserting that six attempts

to serve Defendant at her last two known addresses were unsuccessful. Plaintiff also asserts that

Defendant’s attorney told him that Defendant has been out of the United States for some time and it

is uncertain when she will be returning. 

The Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3), which provides for service

of an individual in a foreign country. Rule 4(f)(3) states: “Unless federal law provides otherwise, an

individual . . . may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States: . . . (3)

Case 3:10-cv-00102-IEG-NLS Document 20 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 10cv0086

by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

(emphasis added). While it appears Defendant may be evading service, Plaintiff still must attempt to

locate and serve Defendant using the methods set forth in Rule 4(f)(1)-(2) for serving an individual

in a foreign country. In the event Plaintiff is unsuccessful, Rule 4(f)(3) allows the Court to approve

other means of service. However, that subsection is qualified by the statement at the beginning of Rule

4(f) that “an individual . . . may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United

States.” Plaintiff does not cite any authority permitting him to serve the attorney representing the

defendant in a separate action. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 30, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-00102-IEG-NLS Document 20 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2