Wright v. CoreCivic Inc.

QUINTIN WRIGHT PLAINTIFF v. CORECIVIC INC., CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC; and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100 DEFENDANTS

No. 3:21-CV-00047-MPM-RP

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division

April 25, 2022

ORDER

MICHAEL P. MILLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This cause comes before the court on the motion of defendant Corecivic, Inc. for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiff Quintin Wright has responded in opposition to the motion, and the court, having considered the memoranda and submissions of the parties, is prepared to rule.

This case presents both state and federal claims arising out of an assault which occurred on March 1, 2020 at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility (TCCF) in Tutwiler, Mississippi. Plaintiff was a detainee at TCCF at the time, and he alleges that he sustained significant injuries after suffering a completely unprovoked attack at the hands of Rodarius Miller who was then employed as a guard at the facility. In considering the summary judgment motion, this court begins with the fact that defendant's own description of the assault leaves no doubt regarding its lack of justification. Specifically, defendant describes the assault as follows:

On March 1, 2020, Wright was in the pill call line waiting to receive his nightly medication. He was joking with another inmate, who is bald, noting the inmate had a “big forehead.” Officer Miller was standing across the hall speaking to two female correctional officers, Shanteka Moorehead and Mishay Hampton; Miller had his back to Wright. Wright later heard from others that Miller and Moorehead may have been romantically involved. Suddenly, Miller turned to face Wright and said, “Don't talk to her like that.”

Wright responded to Miller to clarify: “I wasn't talking to her, but I can joke with whoever I want.” Moving closer to Wright, who remained standing on the wall Miller said, “You think you're tough.” Acting “irritated, ” Miller started getting “really close” to Wright, “acting mad and like he wanted to fight, trying to provoke [Wright], asking [him], ‘What you trying to do then?'” According to Wright, Miller was “acting like [they] were on the streets and he was trying to have some kind of street fight” with Wright. Seconds later, Officer Hampton accessed her facility radio and called a Code to alert response staff of a potential incident. Officer Moorehead ultimately directed Wright to the end of the pill call line, putting some distance between the men. Wright “did what [he] was told, not only to get away from [Miller] but to walk away from the situation.” But Miller followed Wright, as Hampton and Moorehead continued to intervene.

Miller suddenly punched Wright's face with his fist. In the seconds that followed, Miller punched Wright “three, four times probably, while Wright “windmilled” his arms and “rammed” his body toward Miller in an attempt to defend himself. Just ten seconds after the first physical contact between Miller and Wright, CoreCivic's response staff rushed onto the scene and intervened. Miller continued to pursue Wright, briefly escaping his coworkers' efforts to stop him and “slammed [Wright] on the ground.” CoreCivic response staff then successfully detained Miller and separated him from Wright.

Following the incident, once the hallway was secure, both Wright and Miller were taken for medical evaluation.

[Defendants' brief at 3-5].

Defendant thus admits that Miller unjustifiably assaulted plaintiff, although, as discussed below, it maintains that this assault was outside the course and scope of his employment and that, as such, it may not be held vicariously liable for it. In considering the summary judgment motion, however, it should be emphasized that Miller's actions in this case are not the only ones for which Corecivic must answer in this case. To the contrary, defendant faces potential liability for the actions of two other employees who, plaintiff alleges, failed to adequately intervene to stop the attack once it began. As to these employees, plaintiff alleges in his complaint that:

12. Correctional officers Moorehead and Hampton were present when the assault occurred. At the time, Moorehead and Hampton were acting in the course and scope of their employment. Moorehead and Hampton failed to intervene and prevent Miller from assaulting the Plaintiff.

[complaint at 4].

In the court's view, plaintiff's claims against Corecivic arising out of Moorehead and Hampton's actions present the clearest legal path for plaintiff to establish triable jury issues in this case, since, as to these (former) employees, defendant is not able to avail itself of the Mississippi precedent which, as discussed below, makes it difficult for plaintiffs to establish vicarious liability on the part of employers for intentional torts committed by their employees. In its brief, defendant seems reluctant to discuss Moorehead and Hampton's actions in this case, and this strikes this court as being understandable, in light of its admission (in a footnote) that:

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold CoreCivic liable for negligent hiring and retention as to the other two female officers involved in the subject incident, these claims likewise fail. Moorehead and Hampton were terminated following the subject incident for postincident misconduct of falsifying their initial incident statements, in an apparent effort to defend Miller's unjustified assault. However, the post-incident misconduct of these female officers has no causal link whatsoever to Plaintiff's alleged injuries or the subject incident. Therefore, it is not relevant to Plaintiff's negligent hiring and retention claim.

[Brief at 21, fn. 10]. Defendant thus concedes that it terminated Moorehead and Hampton for “post-incident misconduct of falsifying their initial incident statements, in an apparent effort to defend Miller's unjustified assault, ” and this fact makes it exceedingly difficult for it to argue that there are no triable jury issues regarding its liability for their actions in this case.

In so stating, this court notes that plaintiff alleges in his complaint that Moorehead and Hampton were involved in the altercation between him and Wright from the very start, writing that:

On or around March 1, 2020 the Plaintiff was injured without provocation by an employee of CoreCivic Inc. and/or CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC. (collectively referred to as CoreCivic hereafter), Rodarius Miller (Miller). Plaintiff was waiting in the pill call line, joking with one of the other inmates. Miller mistook a joke to an inmate as if it were directed towards [Moorehead], who Plaintiff later learned was Miller's girlfriend. After telling the Plaintiff not to speak to Moorehead that way, Plaintiff told Miller that he was not talking to her. Nonetheless, Miller proceeded to get aggressive with Plaintiff, puffing out his chest out and asking Plaintiff if he thought that he was tough. Miller is much larger than the Plaintiff. Morehead and correctional officer Mishay Hampton (Hampton) told Plaintiff to go to the back of the line and he complied with that order. However, Miller pursued the Plaintiff and struck him at least six times with his fist. After failing to defend himself by swinging back, and after the other officers failed to stop the assault, Miller picked up the Plaintiff and slammed him onto the ground and onto his bad back. While on the ground, Miller struck Plaintiff many more times before he was finally removed successfully by multiple staff members. At the time, Miller was acting in his course and scope of employment with CoreCivic.

[Complaint at 3].

Plaintiff thus alleges that “after the other officers failed to stop the assault, Miller picked up the Plaintiff and slammed him onto the ground and onto his bad back, ” and he argues that this lack of response by Moorehead and Hampton was negligent. This court takes judicial notice of the fact that fights involving inmates are a common occurrence at prisons, and it seems clear that responding to those fights is well within the course and scope of a correction officer's duties. Plaintiff plainly alleges that Moorehead and Hampton failed to meet their duties of care in this regard, and, while this court does not regard the evidence of their negligence as being overwhelming by any means, it concludes that fact issues do exist in this regard. In so stating, this court notes that the fact that these two former employees lied regarding the incident, out of apparent loyalty to Miller, considerably strengthens plaintiff's argument that summary judgment would be improper as to their actions. Clearly, when an employer concedes that two of its employees lied regarding the incident for which it is sought to be held vicariously liable, this makes it exceedingly difficult for it to argue that no triable jury issues exist regarding the nature of their actions. Moreover, plaintiff has a very reasonable jury argument that employees who demonstrated a willingness to lie to protect Miller after the fact might well have been less than motivated to take actions against him while his assault was actually taking place.

In light of the foregoing, this court concludes that triable jury issues exist regarding defendant's liability for Moorehead and Hampton's actions, and this means that a trial will be required regardless of whether defendant faces liability for Miller's intentional assault upon plaintiff. In cases where it is clear that a trial will be required regardless, this court's general practice is to reserve a ruling on partial liability issues until the directed verdict and/or jury instruction stage of trial, and it will follow that practice here.

While this court will thus reserve a formal ruling on this issue for trial, it...