MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DIRECT THE U.S. MARSHAL TO FIND AND SERVE DEFENDANTS

F. DENNIS SAYLOR IV, District Judge.

This is an action by a prisoner in state custody alleging assaults by correctional officers. Plaintiff Eulogio Rodriguez is proceeding pro se.

On May 16, 2011, the Court ordered that the clerk issue summonses and that the United States Marshals Service serve each defendant as directed by plaintiff. Service was attempted, but could not be completed, on defendants James Dapkas, Brian Micciche, or Stephen Vassali, apparently because they no longer work at the office or at the facility where the assaults are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to have the Court direct the U.S. Marshal to find and serve the defendants, or, in the alternative, to order the Commonwealth to either stipulate that these defendants have notice of the action or provide him with addresses of these defendants.

I. Service of Process

Title 28, section § 1915(d) of the United States Code and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) require the Court to "order service by the U.S. Marshal if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP." See Laurence v. Wall, 551 F.3d 92, 93 (1st Cir. 2008).1 However, in order to execute service, the Marshal will need more information than plaintiff is capable of providing. Defendants Dapkas, Micciche, and Vassali no longer work at MCI Concord, and plaintiff currently has no reasonable way of otherwise serving them with process. See Murray v. Pataki, 378 Fed. Appx. 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) ("[I]t is `unreasonable to expect incarcerated and unrepresented prisoner-litigants to provide the current addresses of prison-guard defendants who no longer work at the prison.'" quoting Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 739-40 (11th Cir. 2010)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e); Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Under the circumstances, the only practical method of serving defendants is for the Marshals Service to deliver the summons to their last known home addresses. Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). However, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 66, § 10, and ch. 4, § 7 cl. 26(o), defendants' home addresses are not subject to public disclosure.

This dilemma highlights two significant concerns in prisoner litigation—the security risks involved in informing prisoners of the home addresses of former or current guards, and the ability of prisoners to have access to the necessary information to pursue their claims in court. See Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 602 (7th Cir. 1990). With these considerations in mind, the Court will direct the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections to submit to the Court, ex parte and under seal, the last known home addresses of Dapkas, Micciche, and Vassali. The Court will complete the service forms and will provide them, along with copies of the complaint, directly to the U.S. Marshal. See, e.g., Rua v. Glodis, 2011 WL 5076319, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 24, 2011); Combs v. Lehman, 2009 WL 497124, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 24, 2009) (requiring Washington Department of Corrections to provide, under seal, addresses of retired prison employees for purposes of service by a U.S. Marshal). Alternatively, counsel for these defendants may obtain permission and agree to accept service on their clients' behalf. See Murray, 378 Fed. Appx. at 52 (stating that "the district court ... could have ordered the other defendants to contact [the unserved defendant] to see if she would accept service or to provide the [plaintiff] with [the unserved defendant's] last known address").

II. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons,

So Ordered.