United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM, ORDER, AND OPINION
A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se
emergency motion for service by the U.S. Marshals. (Doc. 8.)
October 22, 2019, the Court entered an order granting
Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. (Doc. 4.) Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d), when a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis,
officers of the Court shall issue and prepare the summons and
deliver the complaint and summons to the U.S. Marshals
Service for service. See Wright v. First Student,
Inc., 710 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 2013), stating,
“[t]he officers of the court shall issue and serve all
process, and perform all duties in [cases where a plaintiff
is proceeding in forma pauperis]”). Fed.R.Civ.P.
4(c)(3) also states that when a plaintiff proceeds in forma
pauperis, the Court must order service be made by the U.S.
Marshals Service or by a person specially appointed by the
Court. In this case, consistent with the Court's standard
practice, the Court attempted to send Defendant a waiver of
service form prior to ordering service via the U.S.
Marshal's Service. See Doc. 4 at 3, stating,
“[a]ccordingly, the Clerk's Office is directed to
serve, via certified mail, the complaint (Doc. No. 1), a copy
of this order, and a waiver of service of summons form on the
defendant at the address as listed in the complaint.”
Defendant did not respond, and no one accepted the certified
motion, Plaintiff states that Defendant is traveling away
from the address provided in the complaint, but is currently
located at the Brunswick Landing Marina, 1 Torras Landing,
Brunswick, GA 31520. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion
(Doc. 8) is granted. The Clerk of
Court's Office shall prepare the summons and provide it,
along with a copy of the complaint and this order, to the
U.S. Marshals Service. The U.S. Marshals Service shall
attempt to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant at
that address listed above. Service shall be completed by
January 7, 2020, and a return of service shall be filed by
January 21, 2020. If no answer or other responsive pleading
is filed by Defendant within 21 days after being served with
the summons and complaint, plaintiff may move for a default
judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55, or file any other
in her complaint, Plaintiff states that she is concerned that
the 90-day window for service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 is running
out. The Court notes that Plaintiff likely has good cause to
extend the 90-days.
See Wright, 710 F.3d at 783-84 (vacating the
district court's dismissal of a complaint for untimely
service of process where the plaintiff was proceeding in
forma pauperis and remanding for a hearing on the reason for
the delay in service; stating, “if the delay in service
was the result of a delay by court staff or the USMS in
fulfilling their obligations, [the plaintiff's] complaint
should not have been dismissed under Rule 4(m)”);
Heyne v. Mitsubishi Motors N. Am., Inc., No.
8:12-CV-421, 2014 WL 3670953, at *4 (D. Neb. July 23, 2014)
(“[S]o long as the plaintiff has provided the necessary
information, the Marshals' failure to effect service is
automatically good cause within the meaning of Rule 4(m) for
failing to serve process.”) (citing Moore v.
Jackson, 123 F.3d 1082, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 1997));
Gibbons v. Pilcher, Civ. No. 12-5035-JLV, 2013 WL
4647502, at *13 (D. S.D. Aug. 29, 2013) (noting that
“[w]hen the Marshal fails to properly effectuate
service of process, the in forma pauperis litigant should not
be penalized for that failure”).
Weakley v. Permalok Corp., 2019 WL 5864227, at *3
(E.D. Mo. 2019).
 In the alternative, the U.S.
Marshal's Service shall file a notice if it is unable to
serve the complaint by that date.
 However, Plaintiff's in forma
pauperis status does not completely relieve her of any
responsibilities under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Heretofore, Plaintiff has provided an address for Defendant,
and a timely update when that address allegedly changed. To
comply with her obligation under rules, Plaintiff must
continue to take reasonable steps to identity the
Defendant's location. Lindsey v. U.S. R.R. Ret.
Bd.,101 F.3d 444, 446 (5th Cir. 1996); see also
Moore v. Jackson,123 F.3d 1082, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 1997)
(“so long as the prisoner has furnished the information
necessary to identify the ...