Davis v. Wigen

82 F.4th 204

Brian A. DAVIS; Fredricka K. Beckford, Appellants v. George C. WIGEN, Former Warden, Moshannon Valley Correctional Center;The Geo Group, Inc.; Donna Mellendick, Former Administrator,Bureau of Prisons Privatization Management Branch; David O'Neill,Assistant Field Director, Department of Homeland Security

No. 21-3162

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Argued December 13, 2022

Filed: September 19, 2023

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, District Court No. 3-16-cv-00026, District Judge: The Honorable Kim R. Gibson

Stephen A. Fogdall [ARGUED], Dilworth Paxson, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Appellants

Dino L. LaVerghetta, Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Counsel for Amicus Appellants

Morgan M.J. Randle, Teresa O. Sirianni, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, 501 Grant Street, Union Trust Building, Suite 700, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Thomas A. Specht [ARGUED], Marshall Dennehy Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.O. Box 3118, Scranton, PA 18505, Counsel for Appellees George C. Wigen and GEO Group, Inc.

Jacqueline C. Brown, Adam N. Hallowell [ARGUED], Laura S. Irwin, Office of United States Attorney, 700 Grant Street, Suite 4000, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Counsel for Appellees Donna Mellendick and David O'Neill

Before: RESTREPO, McKEE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellants are a former federal inmate, Brian Davis, and his fiancée, Fredricka Beckford. Davis served four years of his sentence at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, a private prison that primarily houses alien inmates. During that time, he submitted a request to the prison that he be permitted to marry Beckford. Moshannon Valley officials denied the request despite Davis's contention that he met all requirements under the prison's marriage policy. Plaintiffs filed suit and now appeal the dismissal of three claims: (1) a claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1; (2) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985; and (3) a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We conclude that Plaintiffs have stated a RFRA claim, but that their other two claims fail. Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' RFRA claim as to the GEO Defendants, affirm the dismissal of that claim as to the Federal Defendants because they are entitled to qualified immunity, and affirm the remainder of the Court's order.

I. Factual Background

We draw the following facts from averments in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), which we accept as true for purposes of this appeal. Brian Davis and his fiancée Fredricka Beckford met when they were children. The two maintained a lifelong friendship, one that became a romantic relationship that lasted throughout Davis's extensive period of incarceration. Davis and Beckford are both of Jamaican descent, and while Beckford is a U.S. citizen, Davis is not.

In 1993, Davis was sentenced to life in prison for non-violent drug trafficking convictions. Despite the restrictiveness of Davis's life sentence, he and Beckford remained close throughout Davis's incarceration. Beckford wished to marry him, but Davis feared that he would never be able to support her because he expected to spend the remainder of his life in prison. But when his prison sentence was reduced to 30 years in 2008, Davis changed his mind about marriage. Because he could then foresee an eventual release, Davis agreed to marry Beckford.

Davis and Beckford are both devout Christians. They allege that their desire to marry had "profound religious significance for them" and that they "viewed their marriage as an expression of that faith." JA 100.

Davis's reduced sentence qualified him for a transfer to a lower security prison. Accordingly, in 2012, he was moved from Federal Correctional Institute McKean to Moshannon Valley Correctional Center (Moshannon Valley). Moshannon Valley is a private prison that houses low-security alien inmates. The facility is operated by The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO Group), which contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house federal inmates. At least 98 percent of the inmate population at Moshannon Valley are noncitizens who are "faced with an impending immigration matter or have been ordered deported from the United States." JA 94.

Davis maintained the hope that, after his transfer, he and Beckford could be married. He sought to comply, then, with all of Moshannon Valley's marriage policy requirements. The written policy then in effect required that inmates be housed in general population and demonstrate good living skills, program participation, "clear conduct" for six months, and acceptable work performance. JA 110. If an inmate met those requirements, the prison psychologist and other prison officials were to indicate whether they approved or disapproved the request to marry. Plaintiffs allege that Moshannon Valley's policy "goes beyond" what BOP requires. JA 93.

Plaintiffs allege that Davis met each of these qualifications when he submitted his marriage request. Nevertheless, Moshannon Valley administrative personnel denied his request. Beckford also contacted the prison's officials and sought permission to marry Davis. Moshannon Valley denied her request as well.

Davis challenged the denial of his marriage request through the prison's administrative appeal process. When his appeal was denied, Davis contacted the Administrator of the BOP Privatization Management Branch, Donna Mellendick, seeking her intervention. Her office informed Davis in writing that the grant or denial of inmate marriage requests remained exclusively within the province of Moshannon Valley officials.

Davis eventually learned from discussions with the prison chaplain, as well as several Moshannon Valley employees and at least 20 other inmates, that Moshannon Valley had not approved a single inmate's request to marry since GEO Group began its contractual relationship with BOP. Plaintiffs accordingly allege that despite Moshannon Valley's official policy, its actual practice was to deny all marriage requests.

In 2015, Davis's sentence was again reduced, this time to 27 years. The sentence reduction was a mixed blessing. He was deported after his release the following year. Although Plaintiffs concede that their marriage would not have allowed Davis to challenge his deportation, they allege that marriage to a U.S. citizen could provide a basis for other inmates at Moshannon Valley to challenge their orders of removal.¹

Plaintiffs allege that BOP and DHS officials directed Moshannon Valley officials to deny all inmate marriage requests to ensure that marriage to a U.S. citizen would not interfere with deportation proceedings. Based on research and information they obtained from Moshannon Valley employees, Plaintiffs allege that those BOP and DHS officials are Defendants Donna Mellendick, the Administrator of the BOP Privatization Branch, and David O'Neill, the Assistant Director of the Philadelphia Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (collectively, Federal Defendants).

Plaintiffs also allege that GEO Group and George Wigen, the former warden of Moshannon Valley (collectively, GEO Defendants), have a financial incentive to prevent noncitizen inmates from marrying U.S. citizens because BOP's payments to Moshannon Valley are based on the number of inmates it houses. If noncitizen inmates were able to marry U.S. citizens, some might request a transfer out of Moshannon Valley, thereby lowering GEO Group's headcount.

Beckford further alleges that her inability to marry Davis caused her to suffer serious emotional distress. She contends that because she was not Davis's spouse, prison officials were not obligated to inform her of matters such as his transfer to another prison or his deportation. Beckford worried about Davis's safety in prison, and she claims that this lack of information compounded her concern. Plaintiffs allege that Beckford's emotional distress led to serious health consequences requiring hospitalization.

II. Procedural Background

In January 2016, Plaintiffs filed a pro se complaint against the director of the BOP, the BOP, the administrator of the BOP Privatization Management Branch, Wigen, the current warden of Moshannon Valley, and GEO Group. Plaintiffs asserted an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and several civil rights claims, principally under § 1983, Bivens,² and the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs alleged that by refusing to allow them to marry, these Defendants discriminated against them based on their race and national origin. Plaintiffs sought both declaratory and monetary relief.

Soon thereafter, and while still proceeding pro se, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a § 1985(3) claim. More than a year later, the District Court dismissed the case in its entirety for failure to prosecute because Plaintiffs had yet to serve the complaint on any of the Defendants. Plaintiffs successfully moved to reopen and then served all Defendants except the Federal Defendants.

The Defendants that had been served moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court granted their motion and dismissed the case. It concluded that: the Bivens claims against GEO Defendants failed because those Defendants were not federal actors; the § 1985(3) claims failed because conspiracies under § 1985(3) involving private actors are limited to violations of the right to be free from involuntary servitude and the right to travel; the § 1983 claim failed for lack of state action; and the claims against the Federal Defendants failed for lack of prosecution.

Plaintiffs appealed and secured counsel in June 2020, prior to oral argument before this Court. We reversed in part. Davis v. Samuels, 962 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2020). We held that private parties engaging...