Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01848/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01848-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SHELDON HILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAGANI WORLDWIDE LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01848-VC (DMR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 56

The court has received Plaintiff James S. Hilton, Jr.’s motion for service, in which he 

requests that the court order the United States Marshals Service to serve his subpoenas on third 

parties. [Docket No. 56.] In support of his request, he cites the Honorable Vince Chhabria’s April 

15, 2019 order granting him leave pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915; and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). 

Plaintiff’s IFP status does not authorize the court to finance his litigation-related expenses, 

including costs related to the service of subpoenas. See Porter v. Dep’t of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 

180 n.3 (3d Cir. 2009) (“We note that the granting of IFP status exempts litigants from filing fees 

only. It does not exempt litigants from the costs of copying and filing documents; service of 

documents other than the complaint; costs, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(1); expert witness fees, Boring v. 

Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468 (3d Cir. 1987); or sanctions.”); see also Starkey v. Hernandez, No. 

3:17-cv-01158-JSL-KSC, 2018 WL 2441554, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2018) (“this court has no 

authority to finance or pay for a party’s discovery expenses even though the party has been 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)”; collecting cases). Further, 

Rule 4(c)(3) provides that the court must order service of the summons and complaint “by a 

United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court . . . if the 

plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915[.]” It does not 

Case 3:19-cv-01848-VC Document 68 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

authorize the court to pay for or order the service of subpoenas. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2019

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 3:19-cv-01848-VC Document 68 Filed 10/08/19 Page 2 of 2