Court Opinion

ID: 9692963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:14:19.403149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:38.463329
License: Public Domain

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring:
In their supplemental brief filed in response to an order of this court soliciting the parties’ positions on the impact of Super. Ct. Civ. R. 54-11, counsel for Ms. Hoeffel have “concede[d] that Herbin’s request to have the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) effect service should have been granted.” Ms. Hoeffel’s attorneys have not raised the question whether, before ordering USMS to serve the complaint on Ms. Hoeffel, the trial judge was obligated to “screen the case to determine if it is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim _” 1 James W. Moore, Mooee’s Federal Practice, § 4.41, at 4-56.5 (3d ed.1999) (discussing procedure under related federal statute). Counsel likewise have not argued that Herbin will ultimately be obliged to compensate USMS from his prison income. Id. § 4.40, at 4-54. These issues not having been raised, we cannot and do not decide them.1
With this understanding, I join the judgment and opinion of the court.

. We are not here presented, for example, with a frivolous complaint against a large number of defendants, accompanied by a demand that all of these defendants be served at taxpayer expense.