A judgment creditor requested the sheriff's department execute the judgment obtained by the creditor. The sheriff refused the request. The court denied the motion, expressing the view that comity dictated that a federal court should no more exercise its power to order the sheriff to execute on the federal judgment than should a state court attempt to compel a United States marshal to execute on a state judgment. Absent such cooperation, the court declined to exercise its broad discretion to order the sheriff to act. This office has previously concluded that constables have a nondiscretionary legal duty to serve civil process properly delivered to them under state law and rules of civil procedure.
Sheriffs are subject to the same rules.
Thus, it may reasonably be inferred that in concluding that the sheriff had the discretion to refuse to execute the judgment, the court in Uriarte determined that the sheriff was under no official duty arising under state law to perform the requested service. Accordingly, we conclude that a constable is not required by section 86.021 to serve civil process issued by federal courts. Your second question, conditioned on a negative response to your first question, is whether a constable is authorized to perform these services in his individual capacity. Attorney General Opinion JM-810 essentially concludes that a constable may not act as a private process server with regard to civil process issued by a state court, but you have identified no provision of law, and we are aware of none, which prohibits a constable from serving process issued by federal courts in his private capacity. Consequently, we conclude that a constable is not prohibited from serving civil process issued by federal courts in his private capacity provided such service does not interfere with the constable's official duties.