Barrientos v. CoreCivic Inc.

1

WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORECIVIC, INC., Defendant.

No. 4:18-CV-70 (CDL)

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division

March 28, 2023

ORDER

CLAY D. LAND U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

The Court has spent too much time considering the pending motion for class certification, partly because it has been vacillating on whether the claims in this case are appropriate for class resolution. Vacillation typically means that the party with the burden of carrying the issue has failed to do so. And that is the case here. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of establishing that this case should be certified for class action purposes. Their motion (ECF Nos. 213 & 238) is therefore denied.

DISCUSSION

A class action may only be certified if the party seeking class certification satisfies, “through evidentiary proof,” all the requirements specified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) plus at least one of the requirements set forth in Rule 23(b). Comcast Corp. v Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013); accord Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

Plaintiffs must also “demonstrate that the class is ‘adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.'” Sellers v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt Servs., LLC, 941 F.3d 1031, 1039 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Little v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 691 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2012)). Plaintiffs have the burden to prove that the class certification requirements are met. Brown v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 817 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2016). With these standards in mind the Court analyzes Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, starting with some factual background.

I. Factual Background^[1]

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detains certain aliens while their removal proceedings are pending “or for other reasons related to enforcement of the nation's immigration laws.” Barrientos v. CoreCivic, Inc., 951 F.3d 1269, 1272 (11th Cir. 2020). Stewart County, Georgia detains aliens on ICE's behalf at Stewart Detention Center (“Stewart”), which is operated by CoreCivic, Inc.

Plaintiffs claim that CoreCivic enlists detainees in a “voluntary work program” to provide cheap labor for operating Stewart, which enables CoreCivic to increase its profits. Plaintiffs further assert that CoreCivic uses coercive tactics to force the detainees to keep working, including (1) a “deprivation scheme” which threatens work program participants with serious harm if they refuse to work and (2) a practice of physically restraining work program participants who refuse to work. The Court will describe the voluntary work program, the “deprivation scheme,” and the work program discipline policies.

CoreCivic must provide Stewart detainees an opportunity to participate in a voluntary work program. Pls.' Mot. Class Certification Ex. 13, 2016 ICE Detention Standards § 5.8(V)(A), ECF No. 213-17 (“2016 ICE Standards”). Stewart work program participants serve as kitchen workers, laundry workers, barbers, commissary workers, and in various other jobs. Pls.' Mot. Class Certification Ex. 35, Stewart Detention Center Work/Program Plan Guidelines at CCBVA0000118621, ECF No. 213-39. The three named Plaintiffs--Wilhen Hill Barrientos, Keysler Ramon Urbina Rojas, and Gonzalo Bermudez Gutierrez-served as kitchen workers. Most detainees at Stewart do not participate in the work program. In 2021, there were approximately 326 job openings for detainee workers at Stewart, which has a design capacity of about 1,700 detainees. Id. Between December 2008 and December 2020, approximately 32,000 detainees-nearly twenty percent of the total population during that period-participated in the program. Washburn Decl. ¶ 37, ECF No. 250-4.

In keeping with ICE's rules, Stewart work program participants are paid at least $1 per day. Their earnings are deposited into their trust accounts. Detainees may save the money, spend it in the commissary, or send it to friends or family. The Stewart commissary offers phone cards, soft drinks, snacks, condiments, limited groceries like tuna and ramen, personal care items like shampoo and toothpaste, limited clothing like t-shirts and underwear, and other items. See, e.g., Pls.' Mot. Class Certification Ex. 89, 2015 Inventory Sales Report, ECF No. 21393. To purchase items, a detainee must have money in his detainee trust fund. Detainees may receive funds from outside sources or may earn money in the work program.^[2]

Plaintiffs contend that the food, clothing, and hygiene items Stewart provides to its detainees are so inadequate that detainees would suffer serious harm if they could not earn funds through the work program and purchase necessities from the commissary. Plaintiffs also allege that detainee workers are assigned to safer housing than non-workers. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs argue that some detainees are coerced to join the work program and then become trapped in it. Plaintiffs pointed to evidence of common practices at Stewart which would permit a factfinder to conclude that the food at Stewart was inadequate in both nutritional value and amount. They also submitted evidence of Stewart's practices regarding the provision of clothing and hygiene items, laundering of clothes, and housing assignments, though this evidence does not strongly support an inference that detainees were exposed to serious harm based on these practices.

Plaintiffs assert that after detainees join the work program, they are coerced to remain in the program because they are subject to physical restraint if they refuse to work. Work program participants are “expected to be ready to report for work at the required time and may not leave an assignment without permission.” 2016 ICE Standards § 5.8(V)(M). They “may not evade attendance and performance standards [or] encourage others to do so.” Id. Detainees may be removed from the work program because of unexcused absences. Pls.' Mot. Class Certification Ex. 36, Stewart Detainee Voluntary Work Program Policy § 19-100.4(H)(3), ECF No. 213-40; Trinity Servs. Grp. 30(b)(6) Dep. 419:3-5, ECF No. 233-1. Detainees who are removed from the work program can no longer earn money to purchase items at Stewart's commissary.

Refusal to work may result in discipline in addition to removal from the work program, including “lockdown” or “segregation,” for refusing to work. See Pls.' Mot. Class Certification Ex. 38, SDC Detainee Handbook 35, ECF No. 213 (permitting lockdown for even the lowest category of offenses, like “malingering”); id. at 33-34 (allowing disciplinary segregation for offenses like “encouraging others to participate in a work stoppage or to refuse to work” and “refusing to obey the order of a staff member or officer”); see also Pollock Dep. 148:23149:8, ECF No. 229 (assistant warden stating that when a single detainee stopped working, that was a “work stoppage” that could warrant discipline); Peterson Dep. 235:24-236:25, ECF No. 232 (explaining that a detainee saying “no work tomorrow” would not be a “work stoppage” if the detainee just said it “to himself” but might be a “work stoppage depending on the detainee and “who's around”). Both lockdown and segregation are forms of physical restraint. See Hill Barrientos Decl. ¶ 33, ECF No. 213-64 (explaining that detainees in lockdown are restricted to their beds and must receive permission to use the bathroom); Pls.' Mot. Class Certification Ex. 119, Special Mgmt. Resident Policy § 10-100.4(F), ECF No. 213-123 (describing segregation as restrictive housing where detainees have very limited time outside their cells).^[3] The named Plaintiffs joined the work program to get extra food, and they remained in the program to keep getting extra food and to avoid discipline. Urbina Rojas Decl. ¶¶ 17-19, 44, ECF No. 213-79; Bermudez Gutierrez Decl. ¶¶ 20, 37, ECF No. 213-57; Hill Barrientos Decl. ¶¶ 12, 31.

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3): a Forced Labor Class and an Unjust Enrichment Class. Both classes include all civil immigration detainees who participated in Stewart's “volunteer work program.” The Forced Labor Class's claims are under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”,) 18 U.S.C. § 1589 et seq., and the Unjust Enrichment Class's claims are under Georgia unjust enrichment law. All the claims are based on Plaintiffs' assertion that the work program is not voluntary-that CoreCivic coerces detainees to perform labor at Stewart by using or threatening serious harm and physical restraint if work program participants refuse to work. CoreCivic, on the other hand, contends that Plaintiffs cannot establish causation on a class-wide basis, which would defeat ascertainability, numerosity, commonality, and typicality.

Notwithstanding the complexity of the briefing, the issue is relatively simple. Are the claims of the putative class members sufficiently common and typical such that litigating them together as a certified class is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23? When all the rhetoric and hyperbole is peeled away, the essence of Plaintiffs' claims is that CoreCivic created an environment which had the effect of coercing putative class members to participate in the work program, and then, upon signing up for the program, the putative class members were trapped in the program and unable to escape it. While policies and practices may have existed that applied to every putative class member who chose to participate in the program, Plaintiffs fail to recognize that not every putative class member is similarly situated with other class members.

Before certifying a class, the Court must consider “how the class will prove causation” and whether the elements of the plaintiffs' claims “will be...