United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 2026

Edwin Encarnacion Alamo v. Popular Securities, LLC

Edwin Encarnacion Alamo v. Popular Securities, LLC
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · Decided January 12, 2026
Edwin Encarnacion Alamo v. Popular Securities, LLC

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

EDWIN ENCARNACION ALAMO, Petitioner, v. Case No: 6:25-cv-2516-JSS-LHP POPULAR SECURITIES, LLC, Respondent

ORDER Before the Court is pro se Petitioner’s Motion for Service by United States Marshals Service. Doc. No. 4. On review, the motion (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice.

First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(b) because it does not include a memorandum of legal authority in support. Id. Second, to the extent that Plaintiff is requesting service by the United States Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), Plaintiff has not established such process is necessary. See generally Prosperous v. Todd, No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP, 2017 WL 2291367, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 25, 2017) (“[A] plaintiff requesting appointment of the United States Marshal in order to comply with the service requirements of Rule 4 must provide a factual basis for why a court order is necessary to accomplish service.”). See also Nappi v. Welcom Prod., Inc., No. 8:13-cv-3183-T-33TGW, 2014 WL 2050826, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 19, 2014) (denying motion for service by the United States Marshal where the plaintiff was not authorized to proceed in forma pauperis, and there was no indication that appointing the United States Marshal under Rule 4(c)(3) would result in a different outcome than utilizing a private process server).

Any renewed request for service by the United States Marshal must include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rule 3.01(b) and demonstrate entitlement to the relief sought. Plaintiff is cautioned that although he proceeds pro se, all filings in this matter must comply with the Local Rules of this Court, Court Orders, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 836 (11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989); Doc. No. 2.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 12, 2026.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.