Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08138/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08138-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lynnell Levingston, Pro Se, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Patricia Piburn, Victoria Earle, Steve

West, David Gregory, Jody Tapia, Carol

Haverstick, Erasmo Chavez, Mike Nuttail,

Mel Cody, Jerry McLain, Vicki Wilkins,

Kenneth Issacson, Thomas “Benny”

Garms, Roger Vanderpool, David

Denlinger, Raymon Piburn,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-08138-PCT-LOA

ORDER

The Court has received and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Service

of Complaint and Summons by US Marshal. (docket # 14)

 On September 11, 2009, Plaintiff consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (docket # 11) After considering Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis and supplement to her application, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on September 14, 2009.

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), the district court may order

at the plaintiff’s request “that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal

or by a person specially appointed by the court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3). If a plaintiff is not

proceeding in forma pauperis, the decision falls within the discretion of the district court.

Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 803 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 advisory

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 15 Filed 09/24/09 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 -

committee’s note (1993) (“The court . . . retains discretion to appoint a process server on

motion of a party.”)). The Court should exercise it’s discretion in determining whether

service should be made under Rule 4(c)(3) instead of simply denying service to those

plaintiffs not proceeding in forma pauperis. Id.

In her financial affidavit, Plaintiff avers that after paying her monthly expenses,

Plaintiff has $171.00 remaining. (docket # 4, attachment) Although Plaintiff’s budget is

tight, she owns her home and car, and has funds remaining after paying her monthly

expenses. The Court will exercise its discretion and will deny Plaintiff’s Motion. It will be

Plaintiff’s obligation to have all Defendants timely served at Plaintiff’s expense within 120

days of July 23, 2009, the date she filed her Complaint, or this lawsuit may be dismissed for

lack of prosecution. See, Rule 4(m) and 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Service of Complaint

and Summons by the US Marshal, docket # 14, is DENIED.

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08138-LOA Document 15 Filed 09/24/09 Page 2 of 2