Johnson v. John Brainerd, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
BRYAN WEBB JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BRAINERD, et al.,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:21-cv-00027-JMK1
ORDER RE SERVICE
Plaintiff initiated this action on November 2, 2021 and paid the filing fee.2
After Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, the Court issued an Order
Directing Service and Response (“ODSR”) on August 9, 2022. 	After Plaintiff filed
a request for more time, the Court issued a Second ODSR on January 27, 2023
providing Plaintiff with an additional 90 days to perform service and granting
Plaintiff’s motion for assistance from the U.S. Marshal.3 On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff
submitted summonses to the Court and filed three motions.4 	Plaintiff requests a
court appointed attorney, to proceed without prepaying costs and fees, and to
perform service by email. Although Plaintiff did not specifically request additional
1 On May 3, 2023, Plaintiff’s case was reassigned to Judge Joshua M. Kindred for all further
proceedings. See Docket 35.
2 Docket 1.
3 Dockets 20, 30.
4 Dockets 31-34.
Case 4:21-cv-00027-SLG Document 36 Filed 05/17/23 Page 1 of 8

Case No. 4:21-cv-00027-JMK, Johnson v. John Brainerd, et al.
Order re Service
Page 2 of 8
time to 	perform service, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filings as requesting
additional time to effect service. 	In the interests of justice, the Court will provide
Plaintiff with one final opportunity to complete service within 30 days of this order.
However, as explained further below, Plaintiff’s motions at Dockets 32-34 are
DENIED.
SERVICE
“[S]ervice of a valid summons is necessary before the district court may
exercise personal jurisdiction over [a] defendant.”5 	Proper service of process is
‘not some mindless technicality,’ but rather ‘[t]he requirement stems from the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires that defendants receive
adequate notice of proceedings against them.”6 “To determine whether service of
process is proper, courts look to the requirements of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. 	If a defendant is not timely served, then the Court must—on
motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant, or order that service be made within a specified
time.7
While there is no single test employed by courts when considering whether
to extend the time period in which to serve a defendant, courts generally consider
5 Silbaugh v. Chao, 942 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2019).
6 Johnson v. City of Lakewood, 3:16-cv-05727-RJB, 2017 WL 6033161, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb.
8, 2017) (quoting Williams v. GEICO Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 58, 64 (D.D.C. 2011)).
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Case 4:21-cv-00027-SLG Document 36 Filed 05/17/23 Page 2 of 8

Case No. 4:21-cv-00027-JMK, Johnson v. John Brainerd, et al.
Order re Service
Page 3 of 8
any prejudice that would arise for the parties, including statute of limitation issues
that may arise from a dismissal, and whether plaintiffs “substantially complied” with
the service requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (“Rule 4”).
The Court previously ordered the U.S. Marshal to assist with service and
provided Plaintiff with detailed guidance on how to complete the summonses and
USM-285 forms for the purpose of effectuating service. A few days before the 90-
day deadline, Plaintiff submitted documents to the Court.8 The Clerk of Court did
not issue summonses because they were not properly completed. The USM-285
forms were also incomplete. 	Plaintiff has not provided enough information to
locate Defendants for service of process. Specifically, Plaintiff did not comply with
the Court’s order to include each Defendant’s full name and address on each
form.9 Additionally, unknown persons cannot be served with process until they are
identified by their real names. Neither the Marshals nor the Court will perform any
investigation as to the identity or location of a defendant.
While the Court takes extensive measures to fairly facilitate self-represented
litigation, a self-represented litigant is not excused from the rules that govern court
proceedings.10 Plaintiff acknowledges “the length of time that has lapsed since the
8 Docket 31.
9 See Docket 30.
10 Motoyama v. Hawaii, Dept. of Transp., 864 F.Supp.2d 965, 976 (2012).
Case 4:21-cv-00027-SLG Document 36 Filed 05/17/23 Page 3 of 8

Case No. 4:21-cv-00027-JMK, Johnson v. John Brainerd, et al.
Order re Service
Page 4 of 8
incident (November 6, 2019)”11 and cannot reasonably expect that this matter will
be 	continually 	delayed. 	Plaintiff 	is 	responsible 	for 	properly 	completing 	the
summonses and USM-285 forms in order for the U.S. Marshal to assist with
service.
MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE
Although the Court has already ordered the U.S. Marshal to assist with
service, Plaintiff now requests to be able to perform service electronically. 	While
there is a narrow exception for email service by affidavit giving an “absent party”
notice is filed with the clerk,12 Plaintiff has not shown diligent inquiry that service
could not be completed by standard service methods, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d) or 4(h). Accordingly, this request is premature as Plaintiff has
not properly completed summonses at this time. 	Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion at
Docket 34 is DENIED without prejudice as premature.
MOTION TO WAIVE PREPAYMENT OF COSTS AND FEES FOR SERVICE
Although Plaintiff has paid the $402 civil filing and administrative fee, a
request to proceed without prepaying costs and fees may be initiated at any stage
of a proceeding, since a person who is not an indigent at the commencement of a
11 Docket 29 at 1.
12 See Fed. Rule of Civ. P. 4(e)(6)(D); see also Rules 4(d), 4(h).
Case 4:21-cv-00027-SLG Document 36 Filed 05/17/23 Page 4 of 8

Case No. 4:21-cv-00027-JMK, Johnson v. John Brainerd, et al.
Order re Service
Page 5 of 8
suit may become one during or prior to its prosecution.13 	However, Plaintiff now
requests 	to 	waive 	costs 	and 	fees 	related 	to 	service.14 	While 	Plaintiff 	has
demonstrated that his financial status has changed since the commencement of
this action, the Court has already ordered the U.S. Marshal assist with service.
Plaintiff need not prepay for this service, but the costs of service will only be
advanced by the United States.15 The costs for service will be included in any final
judgment.16 Therefore, Plaintiff's motion at Docket 32 is DENIED as moot.
MOTION FOR COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY
There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case.17 	A court may
request, 	but 	cannot 	compel, 	counsel 	to 	appear 	pro 	bono 	on 	a 	plaintiff's
behalf.18 	Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel,
the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional
13 See Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (“IFP status may be
acquired or lost throughout the course of the litigation”), aff'd in pertinent part sub. nom, Olivares
v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995).
14 Docket 32.
15 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3)
16 The U.S. Marshal service fee may be taxed as costs in this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1920(1) and 1921(a)(1)(A) and included in the judgment. See also 28 C.F.R. 0.114 (establishing
the amount of fees charged).
17 See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Wright v. Dir. of Corr., 443 F. App'x
289, 293 (9th Cir. 2011)
18 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296,
310 (1989).
Case 4:21-cv-00027-SLG Document 36 Filed 05/17/23 Page 5 of 8

Case No. 4:21-cv-00027-JMK, Johnson v. John Brainerd, et al.
Order re Service
Page 6 of 8
cases.19 	In 	determining 	whether 	“exceptional 	circumstances” 	exist, 	courts
consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the
[plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
involved.”20 Neither of these considerations is dispositive, so they must be viewed
together.21
Plaintiff 	seeks 	appointment 	of 	counsel 	to 	assist 	him 	with 	service 	of
process.22 	This is not an exceptional circumstance under the law, and the Court
has already granted assistance from the U.S. Marshal. Further, the Court cannot
determine at this stage of the proceedings whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on
the merits. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel at Docket 33 is
DENIED without prejudice. 	Plaintiff may renew the motion at a later stage of the
proceedings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Within 30 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall supply the U.S.
Marshal all information needed by the U.S. Marshal to effect service of
process. 	Plaintiff must complete the summonses and USM-285 forms as
19 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
20 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
21 Id.
22 Docket 33.
Case 4:21-cv-00027-SLG Document 36 Filed 05/17/23 Page 6 of 8

Case No. 4:21-cv-00027-JMK, Johnson v. John Brainerd, et al.
Order re Service
Page 7 of 8
completely and accurately as possible, include an address where each
Defendant may be served, and return them to the United States Marshal in
accordance with the Court’s previous order.
2. While the Court is directing Plaintiff to complete these documents, Plaintiff
may choose to pursue service without the assistance of the U.S. Marshal in
any manner compliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. 	If Plaintiff
does so, Plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days, properly complete service
and provide notice to the Court in accordance with the Court’s previous
orders.
3. The United States Marshal is directed to serve process on Defendants
without prepayment of costs. 	Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(1) and
1921(a)(1)(A), the U.S. Marshal service fee may be taxed as costs in this
case,) and included in the judgment.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion at Dockets 32 is DENIED as moot.
5. Plaintiff’s Motion at Docket 33 is DENIED without prejudice.
6. Plaintiff’s Motion at Docket 34 is DENIED without prejudice as premature.
Case 4:21-cv-00027-SLG Document 36 Filed 05/17/23 Page 7 of 8

Case No. 4:21-cv-00027-JMK, Johnson v. John Brainerd, et al.
Order re Service
Page 8 of 8
7. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide a copy of the Court’s order at Docket
30 with this order;
8. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to comply with this order will result in
dismissal of this action.
DATED this 17th day of May, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:21-cv-00027-SLG Document 36 Filed 05/17/23 Page 8 of 8