Opinion ID: 693002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attempted Service by the Marshal

Text: 6 In both cases, the Marshals Service was directed to serve process on the designated defendants on behalf of the inmate plaintiffs. The Marshals Service is required to serve process on behalf of individuals proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 566(c). In both of these cases, the Marshals Service failed to serve the defendants who no longer worked at the prison. As far as the record indicates, no effort was made to ascertain the defendants' new locations. The district court did not question the marshals' efforts and dismissed the defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m). 7 We do not believe that the district court's action can be reconciled with this court's decision in Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598 (7th Cir.1990). In Sellers, a federal prisoner brought a Bivens action 4 against the former warden and several former guards, and the Marshals Service was instructed to serve them. The Marshals Service failed to locate these defendants, and the action was dismissed for plaintiff's failure to serve the defendants within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. Sellers, 902 F.2d at 600. We held that the prisoner need furnish the Marshals Service only with information necessary to identify the defendants. Id. at 602. We noted that once the former prison employee is properly identified, the Marshals Service should be able to ascertain the individual's current address and, on the basis of that information, complete service. Id. The prisoner may rely on the Marshals Service to serve process, and the Marshals Service's failure to complete service is automatically good cause to extend time for service under Rule 4(m). Id. 8 The present cases involve state prisoners, not federal prisoners, but the distinction is irrelevant. Sellers is grounded in the belief that use of marshals to effect service alleviates two concerns that pervade prisoner litigation, state or federal: 1) the security risks inherent in providing the addresses of prison employees to prisoners; and 2) the reality that prisoners often get the runaround when they attempt to obtain information through governmental channels and needless attendant delays in litigating a case result. See Sellers, 902 F.2d at 602. These concerns are equally applicable to state prisoners. Although a state prison may be justifiably reluctant to provide employee addresses to a prisoner or ex-prisoner due to security concerns, it hardly can claim the same reluctance in providing the information to a federal law enforcement agency. Further, although the state claims there are state statutory procedures for providing prisoners such information, 5 the record does not reveal whether these procedures for disclosing employee information are any less onerous than the analogous federal procedures this court found lacking in Sellers. See id. at 602. 9 On remand, the district court must evaluate the Marshals Service's efforts and the adequacy of the state disclosure procedures in light of Sellers. If the Marshals Service could have obtained the new addresses of the defendants with reasonable efforts, the marshals' failure to serve process was good cause for purposes of Rule 4(m). Of course, if the failure to serve process was due to appellants' failure to cooperate with the Marshals Service, there may not be good cause and dismissal may be appropriate. See Del Raine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1030 (7th Cir.1994).