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.
Case 2:26-cv-00137-LMA-JVM Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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)(3), ‘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 	plaintiff’s 	motion2 	is 	DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, January 28, 2026.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 R. Doc. No. 6.
Case 2:26-cv-00137-LMA-JVM Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 2