GEO Grp., Inc. v. Newsom
Decision Date | 08 October 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No.: 19-CV-2491 JLS (WVG) |
Citation | 493 F.Supp.3d 905 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | The GEO GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. Gavin C. NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendants. and All Consolidated Cases |
Chanmaly Kendie Schlecht, Michael B. McClellan, Newmeyer and Dillion LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Charles Justin Cooper, Pro Hac Vice, Jose Joel Alicea, Pro Hac Vice, Michael W. Kirk, Pro Hac Vice, Steven John Lindsay, Pro Hac Vice, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington, DC, Michael W. Battin, Navigato and Battin LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.
Gabrielle D. Boutin, California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
This Order addresses motions concerning the constitutionality of California Assembly Bill 32 ("A.B. 32") in two consolidated cases: The GEO Group, Inc. v. Newsom , No. 19-CV-2491 JLS (WVG), 2019 WL 7373612 (S.D. Cal. filed Dec. 30, 2019) (" GEO "), and United States v. Newsom , No. 20-CV-154 JLS (WVG), 2020 WL 408888 (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 24, 2020) (" U.S. "). Specifically before the Court are Plaintiff The GEO Group, Inc.’s ("GEO"), and the United States of America's Motions for Preliminary Injunction ("GEO Mot.," GEO ECF No. 15, and "U.S. Mot.," U.S. ECF No. 8, respectively), as well as Defendants Gavin Newsom and Xavier Becerra's Motion to Dismiss GEO's Complaint ("MTD," GEO ECF Nos. 20, 22) and Defendants Newsom, Becerra, and the State of California's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of the United States’ Complaint ("MJP," U.S. ECF No. 13). Also before the Court are briefs of Amici Curiae Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom for Immigrants (the "Detention Amici ") filed in support of Defendants in both cases ("Detention Amici Br.," GEO ECF No. 26 & U.S. ECF No. 19), as well as the brief of Amici Curiae Immigrant Defense Advocates and Immigrant Legal Defense (the "Procurement Amici ") filed in support of Defendants in the GEO case ("Procurement Amici Br.," GEO ECF No. 40). The Court held a hearing on the above-enumerated matters on July 16, 2020.1 See GEO ECF Nos. 43, 48 ("Tr."); U.S. ECF No. 33. Having carefully considered the Parties’ arguments, pleadings and evidence, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the GEO and U.S. Motions and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings, as follows.
On December 3, 2018, California Assembly Member Rob Bonta introduced A.B. 32 in the California Legislature. GEO ECF No. 1 ("GEO Compl.") ¶¶ 21, 30. Governor Newsom signed A.B. 32 into law on October 11, 2019. GEO Compl. ¶ 33.
A.B. 32 contains three sections. See 2019 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 739 (A.B. 32) (2019). Section 1 generally prohibits the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") from entering into a new contract, or renewing an existing contract, with a "private, for-profit prison facility located in or outside [California] to provide housing for state prison inmates" after January 1, 2020. See A.B. 32 § 1; Cal. Penal Code § 5003.1(a). There also is an exception allowing California to renew or extend a contract with a private, for-profit detention facility to comply with any court-ordered population cap.3 See A.B. 32 § 1; Cal. Penal Code § 5003.1(e). In its entirety, Section 1 of A.B. 32 provides:
Section 2 of A.B. 32 contains several provisions codified at California Penal Code sections 9500 through 9505. See A.B. 32 § 2; Cal. Penal Code §§ 9500 – 9505. Section 9500 defines the terms "[d]etention facility" and "[p]rivate detention facility." See generally Cal. Penal Code § 9500. Specifically, the statute defines a "[d]etention facility" as "any facility in which persons are incarcerated or otherwise involuntarily confined for purposes of execution of a punitive sentence imposed by a court or detention pending a trial, hearing, or other judicial or administrative proceeding," Cal. Penal Code § 9500(a), and a "[p]rivate detention facility" as "a detention facility that is operated by a private, nongovernmental, for-profit entity, and operating pursuant to a contract or agreement with a governmental entity." Cal. Penal Code § 9500(b).
Section 9501 contains a general prohibition on the operation of a private detention facility within the State of California: "Except as otherwise provided in this title, a person shall not operate a private detention facility within the state." Cal. Penal Code § 9501. This provision is followed by three additional provisions containing exceptions. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 9502, 9503, 9505.
Section 9502 excepts several, specific types of facilities, namely:
Section 9503 exempts facilities that are leased from private parties but operated by CDCR or another law enforcement agency: " Section 9501 does not apply to any privately owned property or facility that is leased and operated by the [CDCR] or a county sheriff or other law enforcement agency." Cal. Penal Code § 9503.
The last exception, appearing in Section 9505, exempts contracts in existence before January 1, 2020, and contracts renewed pursuant to Section 5003.1(e) :
Finally, Section 3 of A.B. 32 contains a severability clause: A.B. 32 § 3.
The United States Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") that is overseen by the United States Attorney General. U.S. ECF No. 1 ("U.S. Compl.") ¶¶ 6, 14. BOP has the authority and responsibility to " ‘designate the place of ... imprisonment’ for persons sentenced to imprisonment," id. ¶ 15 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621, 4042 ), and "may designate" as a place of confinement "any available penal or correctional facility that meets minimum standards of health and habitability established by [BOP], whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise." Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) ).
Nationwide, BOP houses nearly 25,000, or approximately 14 percent, of its over 175,000 inmates in private detention facilities. Id. ¶ 40. Roughly the same proportion of BOP's 16,000 inmates in California are also housed in private detention facilities. Id.
BOP owns one detention facility in California, Taft Correctional Institute ("Taft"), that is privately operated. Id. ¶ 41. Taft houses 1,300 inmates. Id. ¶ 42. BOP's contract for the private operation of Taft was due to expire in March 2020. Id. ¶ 41. BOP...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Geo Grp., Inc. v. Newsom, 20-56172
...court here determined that AB 32 regulated "conditions in detention facilities located in California." GEO Grp., Inc. v. Newsom , 493 F. Supp. 3d 905, 935 n.12 (S.D. Cal. 2020). The court took judicial notice of AB 32's legislative history, which supports the conclusion that the state law r......
-
The Geo Grp. v. Newsom
... The Geo Group, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, and United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendants-Appellees, and State of California, Defendant ... ...