Richard Porras v. CoreCivic, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico considers Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims arising from an inmate attack at a privately operated detention facility and Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that Defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, grants the motion to dismiss, and denies the proposed amendment as futile. The Court allows Plaintiff an opportunity to file a new motion seeking leave to amend to address the pleading defect.

Holdings

1. The Second Amended Complaint failed to allege facts that, if proven, would establish that Defendants acted under color of state law. Allegations that CoreCivic operated a facility housing both state and federal detainees under a state-related contract did not establish that Plaintiff himself was held pursuant to that contract or that New Mexico or its political subdivisions were his formal custodians with authority over his liberty interests and conditions of confinement.
2. Leave to amend was denied because the proposed Third Amended Complaint also failed to allege facts establishing that Defendants acted under color of state law and would therefore be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
3. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining New Mexico-law claims after dismissing the federal claims and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Second Amended Complaint alleged facts establishing that CoreCivic and its employees acted under color of state law, as required for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the proposed Third Amended Complaint cured the state-action pleading defect and therefore could be filed under Rules 15 and 16.
3. Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining New Mexico-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed