Heiden Industries, LLC v. Sunshine Car Wash, LLC, ET AL.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA HEIDEN INDUSTRIES, LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 26-137 SUNSHINE CAR WASH, LLC, ET AL. SECTION I ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is plaintiff Heiden Industries, LLC’s (“plaintiff”) motion1 to request service by the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”). The motion states that plaintiff “provided completed USM-285 forms, with an accurate, physical, service address for each named defendants in this matter” to the USMS but was informed by the USMS in Mississippi that a Court order was required to effectuate service.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) provides that “[a]t the plaintiff’s request, 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.” Rule 4(c)(3) goes on to state that “[t]he court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.”

Courts in this Circuit have consequently found that appointment of a process server by the court pursuant to the Rule 4(c)(3) is discretionary in cases where the plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis or as a seaman. See, e.g., White v. Townsend, No. 22-426, 2023 WL 9229115, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2023); Francis v. Experian Info.

Sols. Inc., No. 25-01145, 2025 WL 2326061, at *1 (W.D. La. Aug. 12, 2025).

1 R. Doc. No. 6.

Furthermore, in such cases, “courts generally will not burden the marshals with such orders ‘unless they are really necessary and instead require plaintiffs ‘to seek service by private means whenever feasible.” Francis, 2025 WL 2326061, at *1 (quoting White, 2023 WL 9229115, at *2); Wells v. Coleman, No. 23-117, 2024 WL 1903666, at *2 (M.D. La. Apr. 15, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 23- 117, 2024 WL 1901578 (M.D. La. Apr. 30, 2024) (“[T]he Court did not grant [the plaintiff's] request for service by USMS because he had not shown diligent efforts to serve Defendants on his own. As was explained to [the plaintiff] at that time, before requesting service under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4 (c)(8), ‘the plaintiff should first attempt to make service by some other means provided for in the rule; only when this proves unfeasible should the plaintiff request that the district court direct a marshal to serve the summons and complaint.”’).

Plaintiff is neither proceeding in forma pauperis nor as a seaman. In addition, plaintiff does not explain whether it has attempted service by private means or otherwise explained why service by the USMS is necessary.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs motion? is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, January 28, 2026. feu Pc UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE R. Doc. No. 6.