Case: Barrientos v. CoreCivic Inc.

4:18-cv-00070 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

Filed Date: April 17, 2018

Closed Date: Oct. 27, 2023

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 17, 2018, three current or former detained immigrants filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, where the case was assigned to Judge Clay D. Land. The plaintiffs sued CoreCivic, Inc., a private prison corporation that owned and operated the Stewart Detention Center (“Stewart”), under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1594, and 1595. The plaintiffs, represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and private counsel, alleged that the defendant operated a deprivation scheme intended to force detained immigrants to work nearly for free for the detention facility, resulting in a forced labor scheme and an economic windfall for the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant deprived detainees of basic necessities so that they were forced to work to purchase those items and threatened those who refused to work with serious harm, including deprivation of privacy, criminal prosecution, or solitary confinement. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages. They claimed violations of the TVPA and unjust enrichment under state common law.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the following two classes: (1) all civil immigration detainees who performed work for CoreCivic at Stewart in the “Volunteer Work Program” within the past ten years, up to the date of class certification (“Forced Labor Class”); and (2) all civil immigration detainees who performed work for CoreCivic at Stewart in the “Volunteer Work Program” within the past four years, up to the date of class certification (“Unjust Enrichment Class”).

On June 21, 2018, CoreCivic filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ entire complaint for failure to state a claim under the TVPA, arguing that Congress did not intend the TVPA to apply to alien detainees in the lawful custody of the U.S. Government or to private contractors operating immigration detention facilities. On August 17, 2018, Judge Land denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and found that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to support both their TVPA claim and their unjust enrichment claim. Most significantly, the court found that the TVPA did apply to work programs in federal immigration detention facilities operated by private for-profit contractors. However, Judge Land certified the issue for immediate interlocutory appeal given the substantial ground for difference of opinion on this issue. 332 F.Supp.3d 1305.

The defendant appealed the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss to the Eleventh Circuit on December 12, 2018. After holding oral argument in January 2020, an Eleventh Circuit panel (Circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus and District Court Judge Barbara Rothstein) issued an opinion on February 28, 2020, concluding that "the TVPA covers the conduct of private contractors operating federal immigration detention facilities." 951 F.3d 1269. The Eleventh Circuit further concluded that the TVPA does not bar private contractors from operating voluntary work programs for persons held in immigration detention facilities but that private contractors who operate such programs "may be liable if they knowingly obtain or procure the labor or services of a program participant through the illegal coercive means explicitly listed in the TVPA." The Eleventh Circuit's review was limited only to the legal question of whether the TVPA applied to private contractors operating immigration detention facilities, so it did not address whether the plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently stated a claim under the TVPA.

Following the Eleventh Circuit's decision, the district court lifted the stay. In mid-June 2020, CoreCivic filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The counterclaim asserted that the plaintiffs, if they were to prevail, would be unjustly enriched by any monetary damages and that, in the event damages were awarded, the court should also enter an order awarding CoreCivic all costs and expenses incurred in providing basic necessities to the plaintiffs and the putative class while they were detained. On August 7, 2020, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss CoreCivic's counterclaim.

The plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint on October 16, 2020. In their answer, CoreCivic reasserted their counterclaim. The plaintiffs again moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion on March 10, 2021, finding that the defendant had failed to state a claim under Georgia law. Judge Land noted that the defendant failed to allege that they had any expectation that the plaintiffs would bear the cost of the basic necessities provided by CoreCivic during their detention, writing that "CoreCivic’s audacity in claiming that it should be compensated for providing basic necessities to detainees who it contracted to detain is astonishing." 2021 WL 6931810.

On August 23, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery and ordered CoreCivic to fully respond to discovery requests relating to financial documents, monthly staffing reports, policies, and audit reports. Discovery continued throughout 2021 and into early 2022. On February 15, 2022, the court found that the parties had not made a good faith effort to resolve their outstanding discovery disputes and ordered the parties to meet and confer.

On July 1, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification of the Forced Labor and Unjust Enrichment Classes. On March 28, 2023, the court denied the motion for class certification, writing that not every putative class member was similarly situated with other class members, even if policies and practices existed that applied to every putative class member who chose to participate in the work program. The plaintiffs contended that class-wide evidence that proved CoreCivic knowingly established a scheme intended to coerce detainees to participate in the work program also proved that CoreCivic obtained the labor of all detainee participants “by means of” that scheme. The court rejected this reasoning because, while each putative class member may have been subject to the same conditions of confinement, the record did not show that those conditions were the motivating factor for the putative class member’s decision to join the work program. Thus, the plaintiffs had not established commonality, typicality, and predominance. 2023 WL 2666852.

On July 17, 2023, the defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims and their request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The following month, on August 28, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants as to the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because the plaintiffs conceded that these claims were moot given that they were not at Stewart anymore. The court denied summary judgment as to the unjust enrichment claims because there was evidence that an underlying contract existed, and because there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs were coerced to work for CoreCivic. However, the court limited the plaintiffs' potential damages to the value of the benefit they conferred to CoreCivic through their work. 2023 WL 5538164.

On September 21, 2023, the plaintiffs moved again for class certification. A jury trial was scheduled for October 16, 2023, but less than three weeks before the scheduled trial, on September 29, 2023, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle, and would soon finalize the agreement and dismiss the case. On October 27, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal and the case was closed. Although the terms of the settlement do not appear to be available in the case docket, contemporaneous news reports described settlement terms including a requirement that CoreCivil notify all detained people participating in the work program at Stewart, in English and Spanish, of their rights, including the right to refuse to work and to prompt monetary compensation, training, and safety equipment.

	Document
4:18-cv-00070	Docket Barrientos v. Corecivic	March 3, 2020	March 3, 2020 Docket
1 4:18-cv-00070	Complaint Barrientos v. Corecivic	April 17, 2018	April 17, 2018 Complaint
38 4:18-cv-00070	Order Barrientos v. Corecivic	Aug. 17, 2018	Aug. 17, 2018 Order/Opinion 332 F.Supp.3d 1305
BL-64 18-15081	Opinion Barrientos v. Corecivic U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit	Feb. 28, 2020	Feb. 28, 2020 Order/Opinion 951 F.3d 1269
87 4:18-cv-00070	Preliminary Statement	Oct. 16, 2020	Oct. 16, 2020 Complaint
126 4:18-cv-00070	Order Barrientos v. CoreCivic, Inc.	March 10, 2021	March 10, 2021 Order/Opinion 2021 WL 6931810
285 4:18-cv-00070	Order Wilhen Hill Barrientos v. CoreCivic Inc.	March 28, 2023	March 28, 2023 Order/Opinion 2023 WL 2666852
340 4:18-cv-00070	Order	Aug. 28, 2023	Aug. 28, 2023 Order/Opinion 2023 WL 5538164

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Finding Aid: Immigrant Detention Labor Issues Collection Tessa Bialek	This document is a guide to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse’s Immigrant Detention Labor Issues special collection, which includes cases challenging labor practices at immigration detention …	Fall 2024	Dec. 18, 2024 None
SPLC sues private prison company that uses forced labor of detained immigrants in Georgia to boost profits Southern Poverty Law Center	CoreCivic, Inc., a private prison company under contract with Stewart County, Georgia, to house individuals detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is forcing detained immigrants …	April 17, 2018	April 17, 2018 https://www.splcenter.org/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
	Notice of Deficiency	April 17, 2018	April 17, 2018 PACER
	Notice to Attorney Re: Admissions Requirement	April 17, 2018	April 17, 2018 PACER
	Notice of Deficiency (related document(s): 1 Complaint filed by Margarito Velazquez Galicia, Shoaib Ahmed, Wilhen Hill Barrientos ); Attorney Case Opening - Parties were added using punctuation AND/OR title capitalization - The case opening guide states *REMINDER* all parties must be added using ALL CAPS (ie LISA SMITH or DELTA AIRLINES) - Do not use ANY punctuation when adding new parties - For instructions on adding parties, please refer to the Style Guide located on the website for the Middle District of Georgia - NO NEED TO REFILE. (glg)	April 17, 2018	April 17, 2018 PACER
1	COMPLAINT against CoreCivic, Inc. Fee paid: Receipt # 113G-2855391, $400 filed by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(WERNER, DANIEL) (Entered: 04/17/2018) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on RECAP 2 Summons View on RECAP	April 17, 2018	April 17, 2018 Clearinghouse
	NOTICE TO COUNSEL PRIYANKA BHATT, MEREDITH BLAKE STEWART, BRYAN LOPEZ, R ANDREW FREE, KOREY ARTHUR NELSON, LYDIA ANNE WRIGHT, WARREN T BURNS, DANIEL H CHAREST - Counsel is notified that they do not show in the court records that they meet the required attorney admissions policies of this court. If within 14 days of this notice all requirements, including the payment of Pro Hac Vice or admissions fees, have not been met, a show cause hearing will be scheduled. (glg)	April 17, 2018	April 17, 2018 PACER
2	Summons Issued as to CoreCivic, Inc. (glg) (Entered: 04/17/2018)	April 17, 2018	April 17, 2018 PACER
3	Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by BRYAN LOPEZ (nop) (Entered: 04/19/2018)	April 19, 2018	April 19, 2018 PACER
4	Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by MEREDITH BLAKE STEWART (nop) (Entered: 04/19/2018)	April 19, 2018	April 19, 2018 PACER
5	Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by PRIYANKA BHATT, KOREY ARTHUR NELSON, LYDIA ANNE WRIGHT, WARREN T BURNS, DANIEL H CHAREST (Attachments: # 1 Pro Hac Vice Admission, # 2 Pro Hac Vice Admission, # 3 Pro Hac Vice Admission, # 4 Pro Hac Vice Admission) (nop) (Entered: 04/25/2018) 1 Pro Hac Vice Admission View on PACER 2 Pro Hac Vice Admission View on PACER 3 Pro Hac Vice Admission View on PACER 4 Pro Hac Vice Admission View on PACER	April 25, 2018	April 25, 2018 PACER
6	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by KOREY ARTHUR NELSON on behalf of SHOAIB AHMED, WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, MARGARITO VELAZQUEZ-GALICIA (NELSON, KOREY) (Entered: 04/27/2018)	April 27, 2018	April 27, 2018 PACER
7	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by LYDIA ANNE WRIGHT on behalf of SHOAIB AHMED, WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, MARGARITO VELAZQUEZ-GALICIA (WRIGHT, LYDIA) (Entered: 04/27/2018)	April 27, 2018	April 27, 2018 PACER
8	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by DANIEL H CHAREST on behalf of SHOAIB AHMED, WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, MARGARITO VELAZQUEZ-GALICIA (CHAREST, DANIEL) (Entered: 04/27/2018)	April 27, 2018	April 27, 2018 PACER
9	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by WARREN T BURNS on behalf of SHOAIB AHMED, WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, MARGARITO VELAZQUEZ-GALICIA (BURNS, WARREN) (Entered: 04/27/2018)	April 27, 2018	April 27, 2018 PACER
10	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by MEREDITH BLAKE STEWART on behalf of SHOAIB AHMED, WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, MARGARITO VELAZQUEZ-GALICIA (STEWART, MEREDITH) (Entered: 04/30/2018)	April 30, 2018	April 30, 2018 PACER
11	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by DANIEL WERNER on behalf of All Plaintiffs (WERNER, DANIEL) (Entered: 04/30/2018)	April 30, 2018	April 30, 2018 PACER
12	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by BRYAN LOPEZ on behalf of All Plaintiffs (LOPEZ, BRYAN) (Entered: 04/30/2018)	April 30, 2018	April 30, 2018 PACER
13	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by LAURA G RIVERA on behalf of All Plaintiffs (RIVERA, LAURA) (Entered: 04/30/2018)	April 30, 2018	April 30, 2018 PACER
14	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by PRIYANKA BHATT on behalf of All Plaintiffs (BHATT, PRIYANKA) (Entered: 05/01/2018)	May 1, 2018	May 1, 2018 PACER
	Notice of Deficiency	May 2, 2018	May 2, 2018 PACER
	Notice of Deficiency (related document(s): 14 Notice of Attorney Appearance filed by SHOAIB AHMED, WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, MARGARITO VELAZQUEZ-GALICIA ); Document must be converted into text-searchable PDF format. No need to refile. (glg)	May 2, 2018	May 2, 2018 PACER
15	Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by R ANDREW FREE (nop) (Entered: 05/03/2018)	May 3, 2018	May 3, 2018 PACER
16	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by AZADEH N SHAHSHAHANI on behalf of All Plaintiffs (SHAHSHAHANI, AZADEH) (Entered: 05/07/2018)	May 7, 2018	May 7, 2018 PACER
17	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Stephen E Curry on behalf of CORECIVIC INC Attorney Stephen E Curry added to party CORECIVIC INC(pty:dft) (Curry, Stephen) (Entered: 05/09/2018)	May 9, 2018	May 9, 2018 PACER
18	SUMMONS Returned Executed by WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, SHOAIB AHMED, MARGARITO VELAZQUEZ-GALICIA as to All Defendants. (RIVERA, LAURA) (Entered: 05/10/2018)	May 10, 2018	May 10, 2018 PACER
	Notice of Deficiency	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
19	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by DANIEL P STRUCK on behalf of CORECIVIC INC (STRUCK, DANIEL) (Entered: 05/15/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
20	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by RACHEL LOVE on behalf of CORECIVIC INC (LOVE, RACHEL) (Entered: 05/15/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
21	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by NICHOLAS D ACEDO on behalf of CORECIVIC INC (ACEDO, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 05/15/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
22	NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by ASHLEE B HESMAN on behalf of CORECIVIC INC (HESMAN, ASHLEE) (Entered: 05/15/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
23	STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint re 1 Complaint by CORECIVIC INC (STRUCK, DANIEL) (Entered: 05/15/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
24	Corporate Disclosure Statement by CORECIVIC INC (STRUCK, DANIEL) (Entered: 05/15/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
	Notice of Deficiency (related document(s): 24 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by CORECIVIC INC. Document must be re-filed to add corporate parents, subsidiary corporations and/or any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock to the case, during the filing process in CM/ECF. It is not sufficient to simply have them listed on the document attached, they must also be entered into CM/ECF. During the filing process, the following user message appeared: "Corporate disclosures statement must be filed with any corporate parents, subsidiary corporations, and/or any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock added in CM/ECF during the filing of the document. Failure to add the corporate parents and/or any publicly held corporation identified in your corporate disclosure statement will result in a request to re-file. (glg)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
25	Corporate Disclosure Statement by CORECIVIC INC identifying Other Affiliate HOOSIER ONE INVESTMENTS LLC, Other Affiliate CORECIVIC LLC, Other Affiliate AVALON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INC, Other Affiliate CORRECTIONAL MANAGEMENT INC, Other Affiliate CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES LLC, Other Affiliate CCA SOUTH TEXAS LLC, Other Affiliate CORECIVIC OF KANSAS LLC, Other Affiliate CORECIVIC OF TALLAHASSEE LLC, Other Affiliate CCA UK LTD, Other Affiliate CORECIVIC TRS LLC, Other Affiliate TIME TO CHANGE INC for CORECIVIC INC. (STRUCK, DANIEL) (Entered: 05/15/2018)	May 15, 2018	May 15, 2018 PACER
26	Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by NICHOLAS D ACEDO (nop) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 PACER
27	Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by RACHEL LOVE (nop) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 PACER
28	Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by ASHLEE B HESMAN (nop) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 PACER
29	Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by DANIEL P STRUCK (nop) (Entered: 05/17/2018)	May 17, 2018	May 17, 2018 PACER
30	MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by CORECIVIC INC filed by DANIEL P STRUCK. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(STRUCK, DANIEL) (Entered: 06/21/2018) 1 Memorandum in Support View on RECAP	June 21, 2018	June 21, 2018 RECAP
31	Jurisdictional Statement by CORECIVIC INC (STRUCK, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/02/2018)	July 2, 2018	July 2, 2018 PACER
32	Order granting Petition for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Petition Attached); Attorney Admission Fee Met by JACOB B LEE (nop) (Entered: 07/09/2018)	July 9, 2018	July 9, 2018 PACER

Case: Barrientos v. CoreCivic Inc.

4:18-cv-00070 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details