Cedillo v. Transcor Am., LLC

• Decision Date: 16 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 3:13–cv–00869.,3:13–cv–00869.
• Parties: Ruben CEDILLO, et al., Plaintiff, v. TRANSCOR AMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

131 F.Supp.3d 734

Ruben CEDILLO, et al., Plaintiff,

v.TRANSCOR AMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:13–cv–00869.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Filed Sept. 16, 2015.

Andrew Charles Schwartz, Casper Meadows Schwartz & Cook, Walnut Creek, CA, Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Nashville, TN, Karen Leigh Snell, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, Mark E. Merin, Law Office of Mark E. Merin, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff.

Daniel P. Struck, Struck Wieneke & Love PLC, Chandler, AZ, Jason W. Callen, Erin Palmer Polly, Joseph F. Welborn, III, Lauren Patten, Butler Snow LLP, Nashville, TN, Natalie P. Vance, Gregory Todd Fayard, Klinedinst PC, Sacramento, CA, David C. Lewis, Chandler, AZ, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

KEVIN H. SHARP, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant TransCor America, LLC's ("TransCor" or "Defendant") Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Docket No. 54). Plaintiffs, inmates transported by TransCor, filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion (Docket No. 57), to which Defendant replied (Docket No. 59). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion will be granted.

I. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

Plaintiffs in this class action case are inmates transported by Defendant for a period of more than 59 continuous hours on or after February 14, 2006, and who were members of the class certified in Schilling v. TransCor America, LLC, 2010 WL 583972 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 16, 2010). The proposed class is estimated to include approximately 4,900 persons. (Docket No. 1 at 12). The Complaint lists subclasses of inmates transported between 59 and 67 continuous hours (represented by named Plaintiffs Ruben Cedillo, Alonzo Cleaves, and Terry Houston), between 67 and 95 continuous hours (represented by named Plaintiffs Justin Wright, John Greenemeier, and John Roussel), and more than 95 continuous hours (represented by named Plaintiffs Craig Arno and Leonard Hugall), as well as subclasses of inmates "whose claims are timely under California law, including the tolling provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure sections 352and 352.1." (Id. ).

Defendant is TransCor, a Tennessee corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA").¹ Between 1990 and late 2008, TransCor contracted with state and federal law enforcement agencies to facilitate prisoner transfers and extradition for prisoners arrested in one jurisdiction but legally sought in another. (Docket No. 58–4 at 9). TransCor ceased providing extradition transport services in October 2008 and, since then, has reoriented its business model for shorter-distance transfers focused on hub locations (for local court appearances and medical transfers) and between CCA facilities. (Docket No. 584 at 9).

As noted above, this case follows a prior class action, Schilling v. TransCor America, LLC (hereinafter "Schilling " ). There, the following class was certified:

All pretrial detainees and prisoners who were transported by TransCor America LLC, its agents and/or employees between February 14, 2006 and the present, and who were forced to remain in restraints in the transport vehicle for more than 24 hours without being allowed to sleep overnight in a bed. The class includes pretrial detainees and prisoners who were removed from one transport vehicle and placed directly onto another, without being housed overnight, whose combined trip lasted more than 24 hours. The class only includes those pretrial detainees and prisoners who were transported by TransCor on behalf of a state agency, and does not include pretrial detainees and prisoners who were transported on behalf of a federal agency.

Schilling, 2010 WL 583972, at *12 (Feb. 16, 2010).²

In a subsequent order, the Northern District of California certified the following claims for class treatment: "[P]laintiffs' Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding the use of restraints, lack of overnight rest, lack of access to sanitation facilities and inadequate provision of food during transportation." Schilling v. TransCor America, LLC, 2012 WL 2792688, at *1 (N.D.Cal. July 9, 2012).

On August 8, 2012, the Schilling court granted Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that "as a matter of law, the conditions of confinement challenged by plaintiffs—in the context of transportation of prisoners, over a period of 24 hours or more—did not, on a class-wide basis and without more, constitute unconstitutional deprivations under the Eight or Fourteenth Amendment." 2012 WL 4859020, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 11, 2012). A month later, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to amend/correct the class certification order, which requested that the court "certify subclasses of plaintiffs 'based on the number of days an inmate was continuously transported' by defendants and to add four subclass representatives." Id. The court emphasized that "there was a determination of no liability for the class as defined by the Court on plaintiffs' request." Id. (emphasis in original). Furthermore,

plaintiffs wholly failed to argue or provide evidence ... that subclass differentiation might be appropriate ... There was no evidence or expert opinion that the Court could rely on to, for example, find that a constitutional violation had been demonstrated for class members who were subject to the complained of conditions for other periods of time, such as two or more days.

Id. The court concluded,

[t]he potential need to distinguish among subclasses should have been clear since the inception of this case. The fact that the impact of the conditions-of-confinement complained of changes over time is obvious; this is likely why plaintiffs suggested a class consisting of inmates subjected to these conditions for 24 hours, and not, for example, 18 or 20 hours. As defendants point out, plaintiffs have had discovery in their possession since 2009 showing the duration of the trips for each class member. Plaintiffs made a strategic decision to seek class-wide relief for one class of all inmates transported for 24 hours or more. The Court is wary of allowing amendment at this juncture simply because plaintiffs' strategy did not work.

Id. at *2. However, the court did note that "Defendants have admitted that the claims of individuals who were continuously transported for more than 24 hours and one minute survive the Court's motion for summary judgment ... Those individuals, therefore, are presumably free to file an action on their own behalf or on behalf of a class of those similarly situated." Id. at *2 n. 6.

In January 2013, the class was notified of the summary judgment ruling by publication in the Prison Legal News and the Parties reached a settlement. The Parties' agreement contemplated settlement with prejudice solely with respect to the named Plaintiffs' claims, however this distinction was not included with the Schilling court's order dismissing the case with prejudice on January 31. Plaintiffs assert that through no fault on their part, a stipulation requesting the court amend its dismissal order to conform with the Parties' settlement agreement was not filed until April 1, 2013. The Schilling court granted this request on April 4.

On April 8, 2013, the current named Plaintiffs filed this class action Complaint in the Northern District of California. (Docket No. 1). The court granted TransCor's motion to transfer venue to the Middle District of Tennessee, finding that while either venue was generally proper, Tennessee was more convenient as the location of TransCor's headquarters, non-party witnesses, and relevant documents. (Docket No. 24). The case was transferred to this Court on August 29, 2013.

Plaintiffs' Complaint reasserts the allegations initially set forth in Schilling, namely that Defendant TransCor maintained a "policy and practice to strip search all inmates and restrain them, regardless of their security classification, in handcuffs, waist or 'belly' chains, leg irons, interconnects, and black boxes." (Docket No. 1 at 5–6). Plaintiffs were placed in TransCor's transport vehicles, the interior of which was divided into steel cages, and made to remain there, without adequate bathroom access and no opportunity to wash their hands or shower. They were typically chained to each other in pairs or, when allowed to use the onboard chemical toilet, chained to a corrections officer, which made closing the bathroom door impossible. During transport, Plaintiffs were not given access to beds for overnight rest. In fact, Plaintiffs claim TransCor instructed inmates to remain upright during travel so they would not be injured in the event of an unexpected turn or stop of the transport vehicle. TransCor vehicles are not outfitted with seat belts or sleeping berths.

Extradition trips in the custody of TransCor generally deviated from a direct route due to utilization of a " 'hub and spoke system' of inmate transportation that resulted in some inmates remaining in the transport vehicle for several days." (Docket No. 57 at 4). This system "consolidated inmates located in certain regions on a single bus route (the spoke) by transporting them to hub locations in California, Texas, Kentucky and Florida." (Docket No. 58–4 at 9).

The Complaint illustrates the effects of the hub and spoke system on inmate travel time through the experience of the named Plaintiffs. For instance, had the route been direct, Plaintiff Ruben Cedillo should have covered the 60 miles from the Claremont Custody Center in Coalinga, California, to Fresno County Jail in Fresno, California, in an hour and ten minutes. However, Defendants' route through sixteen California cities took 59.2 hours of continuous travel. During that time, Cedillo could not stretch his limbs or lay down. When the guards stopped for showers, he requested one as well. In response to his request, Plaintiffs claim, TransCor employees sprayed him with Lysol disinfectant. The Complaint alleges that Cedillo and other named Plaintiffs...