Gatlin v. CoreCivic, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 February 2022
• Docket Number: 21-cv-00680 RB/JHR
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
• Parties: JASON T. GATLIN, Plaintiff, v. CORECIVIC, INC., f/n/a Corrections Corporation of America, and CENTURION CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE OF NEW MEXICO, L.L.C., Defendants.

JASON T. GATLIN, Plaintiff,
v.
CORECIVIC, INC., f/n/a Corrections Corporation of America, and CENTURION CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE OF NEW MEXICO, L.L.C., Defendants.

No. 21-cv-00680 RB/JHR

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

February 16, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT C. BRACK SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Jason Gatlin was incarcerated at the Northwest New Mexico Correctional Center (NNMCC). Gatlin alleges that he broke his foot and filed four grievances between May and August 2017, but Defendants CoreCivic, Inc. and Centurion Correctional Healthcare of New Mexico, L.L.C. failed to adequately treat his injury. On January 30, 2020, Gatlin filed a complaint in New Mexico state court, asserting nine claims under federal and state law. The state court dismissed the complaint on January 25, 2021, for lack of prosecution. Gatlin moved to reopen the case on March 30, 2021, and served Defendants on June 23, 2021. Defendants now move to dismiss Gatlin's Complaint for insufficient service of process. CoreCivic also moves to dismiss on the basis that Gatlin fails to state any claim. The Court finds that because Gatlin failed to use reasonable diligence in serving Defendants, his Complaint shall be dismissed.

I. Statement of Facts

Gatlin was an inmate at the NNMCC.^[1] (See Doc. 1-A (Compl.) ¶ 4.) He asserts that

1

Defendant CoreCivic contracts with New Mexico to operate the NNMCC. (See Id. ¶¶ 22, 24.) He further asserts that CoreCivic is “responsible for providing medical care to inmates at [the NNMCC]” and “contracted those medical services to Defendant Centurion . . . .” (Id. ¶ 5.)

Although he does not describe how he was injured, Gatlin incurred a broken foot while incarcerated. (See Id. ¶ 38.) He filed four grievances. (See Id. ¶¶ 37-41.) The relevant factual allegations are as follows:

Upon information and belief, Defendant Corecivic lost the first grievance filed on May 28, 2017 by Defendant [sic] Gatlin, where he reported and/or documented a failure to treat

Defendant Corecivic allowed Plaintiff Gatlin to continue suffering with a broken foot after his second grievance filing on June 27, 2017

Despite knowing of the risk of none-treatment [sic] Defendant Corecivic failed to address the grievances filed by Plaintiff Gatlin and once seen by Defendant Centurion, its employees only ordered cold compresses. Defendant Centurion did not order x-rays and placed a cast on his leg until three days later when Plaintiff Jason Gatlin passed out and fell from pain.

On or about July 13, 2017, Plaintiff Gatlin filed another grievance concerning the lack of medical treatment at [NNMCC] for concerns with his broken foot.

On or about August 17, 2017 Plaintiff Gatlin filed another grievance because

Defendant Centurion had not followed up with Plaintiff Gatlin after placing a cast on his leg.

(Id.)

Gatlin avers that “Defendants had a policy and practice or trade of deliberate indifference to the reality of physical injury of prisoners/inmates which proximately caused [him] harm.” (Id. ¶ 10.) He further asserts that “Defendants are liable for the acts and omissions of [their] employees” and “for their own negligent policy making; their failure to establish adequate guidelines to place inmates on work detail; their failure to adequately train; and their failure to adequately staff their work crews.” (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) (Doc. 4 at 2.) See also Northwest New Mexico Correctional Center, https://www.corecivic.com/facilities/northwest-new-mexico-correctional-center-formerly-new-mexico-women-s-correctional-facility (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).

2

Gatlin brings the following nine claims against both Defendants:

Count I: Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. ¶¶ 43-51.)

Count II: Substantive Due Process violation under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to § 1983. (Id. ¶¶ 52-57.)

Count III: “Custom, Practice, or Policy” of violating constitutional rights under § 1983. (Id. ¶¶ 58-61.)

Count IV: Cruel and Unusual Punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. ¶¶ 62-66.)

Count V: Medical Negligence, Negligent Hiring, Training, and Credentialing. (Id. ¶¶ 67- 72.)

Count VI: Medical Negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 73-77.)

Count VII: Negligence, Negligent Staffing, Training, Supervision, and Hiring. (Id. ¶¶ 78- 83.)

Count VIII: Negligence Per Se. (Id. ¶¶ 84-87.)

Count IX: Punitive Damages. (Id. ¶¶ 88-91.)

Through his attorney, Augustine M. Rodriguez, Jr., Gatlin filed a Complaint in New Mexico state court on January 30, 2020. (See Compl. at 1.) He took no action over the next 12 months, and on January 25, 2021, the state court dismissed the lawsuit due to lack of prosecution. See Gatlin v. CoreCivic Inc., D-202-CV-2020-00759, Dism. Order for Lack of Prosecution (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist. Jan. 25, 2021). (See also Doc. 2-A at 19.) The order provided that “any party may move for reinstatement” within 30 days. (See Doc. 2-A at 19.) Gatlin filed a Motion to Reinstate on March 30, 2021. (See Id. at 20.) He explained that he had “been released from custody and is

3

ready to move the case forward and officially serve the Defendants.” (Id.) Gatlin served Centurion on June 22, 2021, and CoreCivic on June 23, 2021.^[2] (See Docs. 3 at 3; 4 at 2; 9 at 2; 10 at 3.) Centurion removed the matter to this Court on July 22, 2021. (Doc. 1.)

Gatlin filed, pro se, a second lawsuit in state court on March 20, 2020, naming the New Mexico Department of Corrections (NMCD) and CoreCivic as defendants. See Gatlin v. N.M. Dep't of Corr., D-2020-CV-2020-002218 (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist.). CoreCivic removed the lawsuit to this Court on August 27, 2020. See Gatlin v. N.M. Dep't of Corr. (“Gatlin II”), 20-cv-00865 JCH/LF (D.N.M. Aug. 27, 2020). In his pro se complaint, Gatlin alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by operating the facility above maximum capacity, resulting in unsanitary living conditions. See Gatlin II, Doc. 1-1 at 3 (D.N.M. Aug. 27, 2020). Gatlin mentioned that he had suffered multiple staph infections and complained of “[t]he same menu meals . . . for over [three] years.” Id.

Rodriguez filed a notice of appearance in Gatlin II in March 2021. See id., Notice of Appearance (D.N.M. Mar. 30, 2021). Shortly thereafter, United States Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing entered an order that read:

Recognizing that a pro se party may not have the training to provide an adequate complaint, the Court will give counsel an opportunity to amend the complaint. . . . [P]laintiff will have through May 3, 2021, to file an amended complaint. If [he] does not file an amended complaint, the original complaint filed by Mr. Gatlin in state court will remain the operative complaint going forward, and any claims on unserved defendants will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Id., Order to File Am. Compl., at *1-2 (D.N.M. Apr. 2, 2021). Rodriguez did not file an amended complaint. See id., Order (D.N.M. May 4, 2021). He served a copy of the summons and the pro se complaint on the NMCD on June 22, 2021, after Judge Fashing entered a second order setting a

4

deadline for service in order to avoid dismissal . . . .” See id.

Centurion and CoreCivic now move to dismiss this lawsuit. Both contend that dismissal is warranted based on insufficient service of process. (Docs. 3-4.) CoreCivic also moves to dismiss on the basis that Gatlin fails to state a claim for relief. (See Doc. 4 at 3.)

II. Legal Standards

A. Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5)

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) authorizes dismissal of a lawsuit for insufficient service of process.” Exec. Consulting, Inc. v. Kilmer, 931 F.Supp.2d 1139, 1140 (D.N.M. 2013). “In determining the validity of service before removal, a federal court must apply the law of the state under which the service was made.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. N.T.I., a Div. of Colo. Springs Circuits, 898 F.Supp. 762, 765 (D. Colo. 1995)). “Consequently, this Court will evaluate service here under New Mexico law, which holds that ‘a court lacks jurisdiction to pronounce judgment over a defendant or respondent unless that defendant or respondent has been properly summoned into court.'” Id. (quoting Trujillo v. Goodwin, 116 P.3d 839, 840 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005)). “The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the validity of service.” Id. (citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Oaklawn Apartments, 959 F.2d 170, 174 (10th Cir. 1992)).

B. Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Emps.' Ret. Sys. of R.I. v. Williams Cos., 889 F.3d 1153, 1161 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quotation omitted). The Court will “accept as true ‘all well-pleaded factual allegations in a

5

complaint and view these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.'” Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273, 1280 (10th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted).

III. Gatlin did not use reasonable diligence in serving Defendants.

“The basic rule in New Mexico is that all parties to an action must be actually or constructively served within a period of time that includes the statute of limitations period plus a reasonable time for service of process.” Romero v. Bachicha, 28 P.3d 1151, 1156 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (citations omitted); see also NMRA, Rule 1-004(C).^[3] “In considering a motion relating to due diligence under Rule 1-004[(C)(2)], the district court is to exercise its discretion in determining whether delay demonstrates a...