Alan Adams v. King County et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ALAN ADAMS, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02256-JNW Plaintiff, ORDER v. KING COUNTY ET AL., Defendants.

Plaintiff Alan Adams moves for service by the U.S. Marshals Service. Dkt.

No. 25. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), the Court may order the U.S. Marshals to serve process on behalf of a litigant. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis and seamen are entitled to service by the U.S. Marshals under the rule.

Adams is not proceeding in forma pauperis, nor is he a seaman. “Where the plaintiff has paid the filing fee, as Plaintiff has, Rule 4(c)(3) ‘vests the Court with discretion to order service’ by a U.S. Marshal.” Segui v. Stromfors, No. CV-24-01171-PHX- DGC, 2024 WL 3641083, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2024) (quoting White v. King Cnty.

Sheriff’s Off., No. 2:24-CV-00618-JHC, 2024 WL 3316029, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 14, 2024)). “’This discretion is exercised only in limited circumstances, such as when a law enforcement presence appears necessary or advisable to keep the peace or when a hostile defendant threatens injury to the process server.” Jd. (quoting White, 2024 WL 3316029, at *1).

4 Adams asks the Court to order the U.S. Marshals to serve King County Superior Court Judges Poydras and Sutton because he has a disability and based on G his belief that private process servers would be unable to serve them.

7 Whether Adams has a disability makes no difference in whether service should be by a private process server or by the U.S. Marshals. He states that his disability would make it difficult for him to serve these Defendants personally, but || the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit service by a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 4(c)(2). And while Adams speculates that a process server would be unable to serve 12 these Defendants, no service has been attempted. Moreover, it is unclear why the || Marshals would be able to complete service when a private process server could not.

14 Accordingly, Adams’s motion for service by the U.S. Marshals is DENIED.

15 || Dkt. No. 25.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated this 3rd day of December, 2025.

19 C Rama N. Whitehead United States District Judge