Davis v. The GEO Grp.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KIM R. GIBSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants David O'Neill ("O'Neill") and Donna Mellendick's ("Mellendick") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 86), and Defendants Geo Group, Inc. ("GEO") and G.C Wigen's ("Wigen") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiffs Brian A. Davis ("Davis") and Fredricka K. Beckford's ("Beckford") Second Amended Complaint includes the following five claims against all Defendants: Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (Count I); Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") (Count II);

2

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED") (Count III); Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count IV); and Creation of Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count V). (ECF No. 62.) Beckford seeks damages from Wigen in his individual capacity with respect to her IIED claim. (Id. at 17-18.) However, Davis and Beckford do not state that they are suing any of the Defendants in their individual capacities with respect to any of their other claims. (See ECF No. 62.)

O'Neill and Mellendick contend that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Beckford's IIED claim against them (Count III) under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act ("Liability Reform Act"). (ECF No. 87 at 9.) With respect to Counts I, II, IV, and V, O'Neill and Mellendick argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity and that Davis and Beckford have failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. (Id. at 18-30.) Further, O'Neill and Mellendick contend that all claims against Mellendick are barred by the statute of limitations. (Id. at 30-34.) Finally, they argue that Davis is not entitled to compensatory damages on any of the five counts. (Id. at 34-35.)^[1] For their part, GEO and Wigen state that, with respect to all counts, Davis and Beckford have failed to allege an adequate factual basis upon which relief can be granted. (See ECF No. 90.)

3

The Defendants' Motions are full briefed (ECF Nos. 87, 90, 96, 101, 102, 105), and are ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS O'Neill and Mellendick's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 86), and also GRANTS GEO and Davis' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 89.)

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Davis and Beckford's constitutional and statutory claims because they arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Beckford's remaining state law claim because it forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Venue is proper in this district because a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

II. Factual Background^[2]

This case arises from Davis and Beckford's unsuccessful efforts to get married while Davis was an inmate at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center ("MVCC"). (See ECF No. 62.)

4

Mr. Davis is a black Jamaican national who resided in the United States from an early age. (Id. at 4.) Ms. Beckford is a black United States citizen of Jamaican descent who resided in the State of Georgia during the timeframe relevant to this case. (Id. at 3.) Beckford met Davis as a child, and the pair had a continuous relationship over the following years.

In 1993, Davis was convicted of non-violent drug offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment. (Id. at 5.) Following his sentencing, Davis was incarcerated at FCI McKean in Bradford, Pennsylvania, where he remained until his term of imprisonment was reduced to thirty years on June 19, 2008. (Id.) Once his sentence was reduced, Davis and Beckford became engaged and planned to get married. (Id.) As devout Christians, Davis and Beckford viewed getting married as an expression of their faith. (Id. at 16.) Following the reduction of his sentence, Davis also requested to be transferred to FCI Fort Dix, a BOP-operated facility in New Jersey that was close to his family, who lived in New York. (Id. at 7.) Davis was instead transferred to MVCC, where he arrived on June 1, 2012. (Id.) At the time of Davis's arrival at MVCC, he and Beckford knew that he would soon face deportation. (Id. at 5.)

MVCC was a private prison owned by GEO and located in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 3 at 4.) GEO was a private corporation with headquarters in Florida. (ECF No. 62 at 6.) GEO owned and operated MVCC pursuant to a contract with the United States and under the supervision of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP^, ). (Id.)

After Davis arrived at MVCC, he and Beckford submitted a written request to MVCC administrative staff, asking that preparations be made to allow the couple to get

5

married. (Id. at 7.) Davis and Beckford indicate that MVCC administrative personnel denied Davis's request on multiple occasions, and that the last denial came from Wigen, the warden at MVCC from around March of 2013 to November of 2015. (Id.; ECF No. 3 at 4.) Beckford also submitted a written request to MVCC personnel asking that preparations be made for her and Davis to marry, but her request was denied as well. (ECF No. 62 at 8.)

After MVCC denied their request to marry, Davis and Beckford challenged the denial through the administrative remedy process, and ultimately brought the matter to the attention of the Administrator of the Privatization Management Branch at the BOP, Mellendick. (Id.) In response, Mellendick or a member of her staff informed Davis, in a written correspondence, that the matter was exclusively for MVCC personnel to resolve. (Id.)

Davis remained at MVCC until on or around April 20, 2016. (Id. at 9.) He and Beckford were not permitted to marry at any point prior to his departure from MVCC. (Id.) As a result of her inability to marry Davis, Beckford states that she has suffered "stress, anxiety, hospitalization, and long term medical issues (Id. at 19.)

Davis and Beckford allege that the BOP and other government officials have contracted with GEO to ensure that alien-inmates are housed at MVCC and prevented from marrying. (Id. at 10.) Specifically, they allege that Mellendick, in her capacity as administrator of the BOP Privatization Branch, and O'Neill, who was the Assistant Field Officer Director of the Philadelphia Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), Department of Homeland Security (^//DHS^//) at the time, were the individuals "who directed MVCC to deny inmates the right to marry." (Id.) According to Davis and Beckford,

6

approximately "98% (if not all) of the inmates housed at MVCC are faced with an impending immigration matter or have been ordered deported from the United States/' and DHS "is able to commence removal proceedings while the inmate is serving their federal sentence." (Id.) Davis and Beckford state that since MVCC was acquired by GEO and began receiving federal funding, no inmates at the prison have been allowed to marry. (Mat 9-10.)

III. Procedural Background

Davis and Beckford filed a pro se Complaint on January 25, 2016, and then filed an Amended Complaint on February 22, 2016. (ECF Nos. 1, 6.) In their Amended Complaint, Davis and Beckford brought claims against GEO, Wigen, O'Neill, and the then-unnamed Administrator of the Bureau of Prisons Privatization Management Branch. (ECF No. 6.) Davis and Beckford alleged that the Defendants had violated: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985; the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution; the Constitution of Pennsylvania; 45 C.F.R. § 3.6; and 28 C.F.R. § 42.104.

On August 31, 2017, GEO and Wigen filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 29.) On December 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant GEO and Wigen's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 37.) The Magistrate Judge found that Davis and Beckford had failed to state claims against GEO and Wigens upon which relief could be granted. (Id.) Further, the Judge found that Davis and Beckford's failure to prosecute the case against the BOP Administrator and O'Neill mandated dismissal of the claims against those defendants. (Id.) On January 30, 2018, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's

7

Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. (ECF No. 44.) In response, on January 31, Davis and Beckford appealed this Court's decision to the Third Circuit. (ECF No. 45.)

In its opinion, the Third Circuit affirmed this Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' Bivens claim, as well as Plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 2000d. Davis v. Samuels, 962 F.3d 105, 113-16 (3d Cir. 2020). However, the Third Circuit reversed this Court's dismissal of Davis and Beckford's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), as well as its dismissal of Davis and Beckford's claims under the Equal Protection Clause, Pennsylvania Constitution, and Federal regulations. Id. at 115-16. With respect to Davis and Beckford's claim under Section 1985(3), the Third Circuit reversed this Court on narrow grounds, explaining that it...