Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00309/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00309-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ADONIS MURPHY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KELSO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER FORWARDING A COPY OF 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO THE 

MARSHAL'S REQUEST FOR 

REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF SERVICE

and REQUIRING CLARIFICATION FROM 

THE MARSHAL AS TO SERVICE EFFORTS

(Docs. 26, 34)

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Gregory Adonis Murphy, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint 

commencing this action on August 30, 2011. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed the First Amended 

Complaint on June 27, 2013. (Doc. 17.) On July 25, 2013, the Court issued an order for this 

action to proceed on the First Amended Complaint against Defendants Allison, Enenmoh, and 

Metts ("Defendants"). (Doc. 18.) On August 7, 2013, the Court ordered the United States 

Marshal ("Marshal") to serve process on Defendants. (Doc. 20.) 

On April 17, 2014, the Marshal filed a USM-285 form indicating that on March 6, 2014, 

personal service was effected upon Defendants. (Doc. 25.) That same day, the Marshal filed a 

request for a court order requiring Defendants to reimburse the costs incurred by the Marshal for 

personal service (AMarshal=s Request@), pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 3
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

Procedure. (Doc. 26.) Defendants filed their response and indicated that a request for waiver of 

service was never received, but failed to serve their response on the Marshal's Office. (Doc. 34.) 

Given Defendants' response, the proofs of service provided by the Marshal were reviewed. 

(Doc. 25.) The proofs of service are unclear as to what their efforts at service were prior to 

personally serving Defendants. The notations in the remarks section of the proof of service 

indicate "mailed 9-4-13," "FWD 12/9/13," and "assign personal service 2/26/14." (Doc. 25, pp. 1, 

3, 5.) 

It is clear enough that the last remark assigned the matter out for personal service, but the 

first two remarks do not indicate where and on whom service was attempted. Further, the 

notation "FWD 12/9/13" is unclear as to whether the document was mailed to the same address as 

attempted in September (wherever that was), or if they made contact with whomever they 

attempted to serve by mail on September 4th and were advised that the documents had been 

received and forwarded to some other location (if so, where?), or if service was attempted via a 

new address that they had received in response to their first service attempt (if so, where?), or if 

something else altogether was intended via the December 9th notation. Given this, it is extremely 

difficult to decipher whether sufficient efforts were made prior to assignment for personal service. 

The Court understands that the Marshal is not represented by counsel, but their efforts must be 

clear and sufficient before Defendants will be required to reimburse for the costs of personal 

service. 

Further, the memorandum in which the Marshal requests reimbursement is phrased in the 

singular and so it is unclear whether one payment of $85.16 is being requested, or if it seeks

$85.16 for each proof of service which would amount to a payment of $255.48. Further, it 

appears that all three Defendants were personally served at the same address and all three proofs 

of service, though difficult to decipher for certain, appear to note "108 miles RT." If served at the 

same address in one trip, the Marshal may only be entitled to one payment for mileage. It is 

unclear whether the Marshal is attempting to get triple payment for the mileage driven, or if the 

Marshal divided the total miles driven to accomplish personal service by three to arrive at 108 

miles attributable to each Defendant. 

Case 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Given that Defendants did not serve the Marshal with a copy of their response, one is 

being provided herewith. Further, the Marshal is granted the opportunity to clarify the details of 

their service attempts prior to personally serving Defendants by filing a new proof of service and 

a new request for reimbursement detailing the specific amount requested.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) within thirty days from the date of service of this order, the Marshal shall file new 

proofs of service detailing efforts taken to serve each Defendant prior to 

assignment for personal service, a new request for reimbursement detailing the 

specific amount requested, and any further documentation they feel will assist the 

Court in this matter; and 

(2) the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the Defendant's response to 

the request for reimbursement, filed May 28, 2014 (Doc. 34), to the United States 

Marshals Service along with a copy of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 08/01/14 Page 3 of 3