1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES SHELDON HILTON, Case No. 19-cv-01848-VC (DMR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. SERVICE

10 PAGANI WORLDWIDE LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 56 11 Defendants.

12 The court has received Plaintiff James S. Hilton, Jr.’s motion for service, in which he 13 requests that the court order the United States Marshals Service to serve his subpoenas on third 14 parties. [Docket No. 56.] In support of his request, he cites the Honorable Vince Chhabria’s April 15 15, 2019 order granting him leave pursuant to

to proceed in forma pauperis 16 (“IFP”);

; and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). 17 Plaintiff’s IFP status does not authorize the court to finance his litigation-related expenses, 18 including costs related to the service of subpoenas. See Porter v. Dep’t of Treasury,

, 19 180 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 20 documents other than the complaint; costs,

(f)(1); expert witness fees, Boring v. 21 Kozakiewicz,

(3d Cir. 1987); or sanctions.”); see also Starkey v. Hernandez, No. 22 3:17-cv-01158-JSL-KSC,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2018) (“this court has no 23 authority to finance or pay for a party’s discovery expenses even though the party has been 24 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

(a)”; collecting cases). Further, 25 Rule 4(c)(3) provides that the court must order service of the summons and complaint “by a 26 United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court . . . if the 27 1 authorize the court to pay for or order the service of subpoenas. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is 2 || denied. □ 3 KD © ON 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. iS RDERED | □ 5 || Dated: October 8, 2019 2/(Nyr 1S so O ~ < 6 {A ee at □ Fags Masisttaealectee □ □ 8 □□ DS LY 9 VORTRICE © 10 11 3s 12

© 15 16 &

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28