IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
May 7, 2009
STEVEN W. JAMES, PLAINTIFF,
ILLINOIS SEXUALLY DANGEROUS PERSON ACT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's "Motion for Service of Summons." (Doc. 2). Plaintiff requests that the Court direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service of summons and complaint on his behalf. Plaintiff contends that he cannot rely upon the waiver of summons procedures prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). Plaintiff further asserts that he has "no reliable agents residing within the State of Illinois" to effect service on his behalf. Plaintiff does indicate he is willing to pay the U.S. Marshal to serve the defendants.
A review of the record reveals that plaintiff is proceeding pro se. However, he is not incarcerated or in custody, and he is not proceeding as a pauper under 28 U.S.C. 1915, so the Court is not required to effect service on plaintiff's behalf. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to explain why the waiver provision cannot be utilized, or why he has not attempted to hire a private process server. Plaintiff is free to contact the U.S. Marshal's Office and retain their services, but he will undoubtedly have to pay to have a Marshal effect service on his behalf.
According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service must be completed within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. By the Court's calculation, plaintiff is now down to his last day to effect service. Because plaintiff has no doubt been awaiting ruling on the subject motion, and in the interest of justice, a brief extension of time will be allotted within which to complete service. No further extensions of time will be granted. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to complete service within the allotted time will surely result in the dismissal of his complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's "Motion for Service of Summons" (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have through July 8, 2009, to effect service of the complaint upon the defendants in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. No further extensions will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.