Mathis v. GEO Group Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:08-CT-21-D,2:08-CT-21-D |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | KEITH MATHIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GEO GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Louis Calland ("Calland") and Gregory Terrell ("Terrell") (collectively, "plaintiffs") are inmates at Rivers Correctional Institution ("Rivers"). Plaintiffs contend that defendants GEO Group, Inc. ("GEO"), the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), and Harley Lappin ("Lappin"), Director of the BOP (collectively, "the BOP defendants"),1 have violated and are violating federal and state law in connection with their medical care. Calland also complains that the BOP and GEO have denied and are denying him access to programs and facilities at Rivers solely because of his disability. GEO is a private corporation that owns and operates Rivers, and the BOP has a procurement contract with GEO under which it pays GEO to house federal inmates at Rivers. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and wish to serve as the class representatives for all current and future inmates at Rivers.
On November 9, 2009, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint, but granted Calland's request to file a second amended complaint to amend the deficient claims [D.E. 96]. On December 9,2009, Calland filed a second amended complaint [D.E. 98]. OnSeptember 29, 2010, the court granted in part defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissed GEO from the action, and granted Calland's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint [D.E, 122]. On October 25, 2010, Calland and Terrell filed a third amended complaint [D.E. 125]. On November 29,2010, GEO filed a motion to dismiss [D.E. 130]. On December 3, 2010, the BOP defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and a motion to seal [D.E. 132, 133], On February 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for discovery and a motion to deny the BOP defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) [D.E. 137, 139]. On March 15, 2011, the BOP defendants filed a motion to strike the jury demand in plaintiffs' third amended complaint [D.E. 146], Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion to strike the jury demand concerning the Eighth Amendment claim for declaratory and injunctive relief against the BOP Defendants. See Pis.' Resp. BOP Defs.' Mot. Strike 1. Because that claim is the only remaining claim, the court grants the motion to strike [D.E. 146]. As explained below, GEO's motion to dismiss is granted, the BOP defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice, and plaintiffs* motion for discovery is granted.
In its November 9, 2009 order, the court described the background of this case in detail and thus restricts its discussion in this order to the pending motions.
Plaintiffs' third amended complaint contains four claims,2 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and proposes to proceed as a class action on behalf of current and future inmates at Rivers.GEO, a private corporation that owns and operates Rivers, has a federal-government procurement contract with the BOP. The BOP pays GEO to house federal inmates at Rivers. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29-32. Plaintiffs claim that, while incarcerated at Rivers, GEO, the BOP, and Lappin have provided them inadequate medical care. Specifically, Calland alleges mat he received inadequate medical treatment for his arthritis, degenerative bone disease, and diabetes, resulting in poor health and severe pain. Id. ¶ 10. He also claims that he is unable to access the facilities, programs, services, and activities at Rivers because of his disability. See id. Terrell alleges that he suffers from "end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee," for which an orthopedic surgeon has stated requires "total knee replacement surgery," but "Rivers medical staff refused to provide that corrective surgery." Id. ¶ 11.
Plaintiffs make several allegations regarding the BOP's involvement in the day-to-day operations of Rivers. They allege that the contract between GEO and the BOP Id. ¶ 34. The contract also allegedly "provides for on-site BOP monitors at the Rivers facility, charges [the BOP monitors] with 'the technical direction of the performance of all work' performed pursuant to the Rivers Contract, and requires the construction of a 2, 500-square-foot office and ten parking spaces for [the BOP's] exclusive use." Id. ¶ 36.
According to plaintiffs, the BOP "has specific responsibility for oversight and monitoring of GEO's activities at Rivers" through the Privatization Management Branch of its Correctional Programs Division. M. ¶ 35. "[T]he BOP's Privatization Management Branch has received administrative complaints from prisoners, including Plaintiffs Calland and Terrell, concerning the medical conditions at Rivers." Id. Plaintiffs and other prisoners have submitted "Regional Administrative Remedy Appeals to BOP's Privatization Management [B]ranch" and the BOP hasrejected such appeals. Id. In addition, "an on-site BOP monitor participates in the prison officer 'main line,' [3 ] which occurs daily." Id. ¶ 36. Accordingly, plaintiffs allege that, through its on-site involvement and supervision at Rivers via the Privatization Management Branch and participation by BOP monitors in the "main line," "the BOP is aware of and continues to disregard the risks and severe harm to prisoner health and safety detailed by Plaintiffs in the Complaint," "the BOP has received actual notice of the harms caused to prisoners in its custody by the grossly inadequate medical care and lack of accessible facilities at Rivers," and the BOP "ha[s] actual notice of prison complaints about the medical conditions and can get visual confirmation of the lack of accessibility for disabled prisoners in the facility." Id. ¶¶ 35-36.
Terrell and Calland make four claims in their third amended complaint. First, plaintiffs claim that the allegedly inadequate medical care violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and seek relief from all defendants. Id. ¶¶ 63-71. Second, Calland claims that the BOP and GEO violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Id. ¶¶ 72-80. Specifically, Calland alleges that he uses a wheelchair and claims that he has been denied equal access to the facilities, programs, services, and activities at Rivers, solely because of his physical disability. Id. ¶¶ 10, 77-78.
Third, plaintiffs seek relief under North Carolina law and claim that GEO negligently failed to provide reasonable medical care and treatment to them. Id. ¶¶ 81-84. GEO's alleged breaches include:
(a) the failure to provide access to health care services; (b) the failure to hire, train, supervise and maintain an adequate level of qualified health care staff at Rivers; (c) the failure to establish an adequate and reasonable method for distributing medication; and (d) the failure to contain or treat infectious diseases.
Id. ¶ 83. According to plaintiffs, GEO's negligence proximately caused them to suffer "immediate and irreparable injury" and a "heightened risk of premature death." Id. ¶ 84.
Fourth, plaintiffs claim to be third-party beneficiaries to the contract between the BOP and GEO and allege that the contract was intended to confer the direct benefit of adequate medical, dental, and mental health care on them. Id. ¶ 86. According to plaintiffs, GEO breached and continues to breach its express and implied contractual obligations to them by failing to provide adequate health care. M. ¶ 87. Plaintiffs claim that GEO's alleged breach has caused them physical pain and injury, and they ask the court to order GEO to "perform its obligations to provide adequate health care under the Rivers Contract." Id. ¶¶ 88,90.
Plaintiffs seek to have this action certified as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 43 (prayer for relief); see id. ¶¶ 41-62. The proposed class would include "current and future prisoners of Rivers who, during their incarceration at Rivers, are dependent upon the organizations, systems, policies, practices, and institutional conditions of Defendants for their receipt of medical, dental, and mental health care." Id. ¶41. Calland also seeks certification of a sub-class on behalf of "all prisoners who have been denied access to the programs, services, facilities, and activities at Rivers because of Defendants' failures to diagnose, monitor, treat and/or accommodate their serious medical conditions, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act." Id. ¶ 52. Plaintiffs request declaratory and injunctive relief for themselves and those similarly situated, along with costs and attorneys' fees, and seek a jury trial. Id. at 43-44.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests subject-matter jurisdiction, which is the court's "statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (emphasis omitted). A federalcourt "must determine that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over [a claim] before it can pass on the merits of that [claim]." Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 479-80 (4th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs, as the party asserting that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction, must prove that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 104; Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642,647 (4th Cir. 1999); Richmond. Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. United States. 945 F.2d 765,768 (4th Cir. 1991). In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the motion into one...
To continue reading
Request your trial