UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

RAYON PAYNE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-615-WWB-LHP

LISA T. MUNYON, REGINALD WHITEHEAD, ERIC J. NETCHER, LUIS CALDERON, MICHAEL DEEN, PATRICIA STROWBRIDGE, DAN TRAVER, JOHN K. STARGEL, KEITH WHITE, MARY ALICE NARDELLA, JOSHUA A. MIZE, PAETRA T. BROWNLEE, ROGER GANNAM, JARED E. SMITH, BRIAN D. LAMBERT, JANE YORK PUNNEO, TIFFANY MOORE RUSSELL, ERIC PARKE LARUE, II , DONALD DEMPSEY, KRISTA N. CAMMACK, BENJAMIN KOESTER, STUART GLENN, KIMBERLY LOPEZ, ASHA WEDEMIER-ALLAN, JOHN RINE, SHANNON ELIZABETH MURPHY, MARY J. WALTER, MICHAEL R. D’LUGO, KRISTEN M. FIORE, CAITLIN R. POLCARO, PAUL IRVIN, ANDREW IRVIN, JOHN FULLER, PETER MAGNANI, NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, RLW REALTY, LLC, THE LARUE FIRM PLLC, DONALD DEMPSEY, P.A., LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, IRVIN & IRVIN, PLLC, WALTER APPEALS & GENERAL LITIGATION, JERMAINE CARLOS DIAZ, JULIYA STAR, MELISSA SUE AMARAL, LOGAN WILSON, ELIZABETH JEAN, DAVID HUTCHINSON and LAUREN BURROWS,

Defendants

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by U.S. Marshal. Doc. No. 7. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, asks that the Court authorize service by the United States Marshals Service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), stating that she “lacks institutional or financial resources to coordinate service;” “personal service by the Plaintiff raises serious security and ethical concerns;” and given that the named Defendants “are current or former judicial officers or employees of the State of Florida.” Id. at 1. Upon review, the motion (Doc. No. 7) will be DENIED without prejudice. Rule 4(c)(3) provides that “the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under

or as a seaman under

.” Here, because Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the court is not obligated to order that service be made by a United States Marshal. See Somerville v. Dep’t of

Health & Hum. Servs., No. 6:24-cv-2185-JSS-EJK,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2024). And “although Rule 4(c)(3) . . . gives the [c]ourt discretion to order the United States Marshal to serve civil process, the Advisory Committee Notes

state that [such] appointment . . . is generally proper when it is necessary to keep the peace.”

(citing Nappi v. Welcom Prods., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-3183-T-33TGW,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2014)). That circumstance is not present here, and Plaintiff’s motion does not establish why service by the United States Marshal

is necessary, given that there are available avenues for Plaintiff to effect service, to include retaining a private process server or requesting that Defendants waive service. See Prosperous v. Todd, No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP,

, at *1

(M.D. Fla. May 25, 2017) (denying Rule 4(c)(3) motion for same reason); see also GMAC Real Est., LLC v. Waterfront Realty Grp., Inc., No. 2:09-cv-546-FtM-36SPC,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2010) (denying motion to appoint special

process server where “Plaintiff has provided no factual basis for why a court order is necessary to accomplish service of process and does not include any legal authority in support of its Motion other than Rule 4(c)(3)”). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 17, 2025.

ay □□□□□ LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

A!