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 discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress by correctional officers at the North Central Correctional Institution at Gardner. Plaintiff Charles Shoulders is proceeding pro se.

On February 28, 2013, the Court ordered that the clerk issue summonses and that the United States Marshals Service serve each defendant as directed by plaintiff. On April 17, 2013, after an unsuccessful first attempt at service, the Court ordered another issuance and service. Service was successfully completed on defendant John Waldron. Service was attempted but could not be completed on defendant John Macorkadale, apparently because he no longer works at the facility where the events in question are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to have the Court direct the Department of Corrections to provide Macorkadale's home address, birth date, and social security number in order to facilitate service.

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. Defendant no longer works at NCCI Gardner, and plaintiff currently has no reasonable way of otherwise serving him 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 defendant is for the Marshals Service to deliver the summons to his last-known home address. 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 address of defendant Macorkadale. The Court will complete the service form and will provide it, 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 defendant may obtain permission and agree to accept service on their client's 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, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

So Ordered.