Case: 1:18-cv-169 As of: 09/25/2019 07:37 PM CDT 1 of 6
INTAPP,STAYED
U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (Austin) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18−cv−00169−LY

Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Lee Yeakel Demand: $5,000,000 Case in other court: USCA 5th, 19−50691 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/22/2018 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Martha Gonzalez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Josef F. Buenker The Buenker Law Firm 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 (713)868−3388 Fax: (713)683−9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vijay Anand Pattisapu Buenker Law Firm 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 713−868−3388 Fax: 713−683−9940 Email: vijay@buenkerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas H. Padgett , Jr. The Buenker Law Firm 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 713−868−3388 Fax: 713−683−9940 Email: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant CoreCivic, Inc.

represented by Allison L. Bowers Hutcheson Bowers LLLP Four Barton Skyway 1301 South Mopac Suite 430 Austin, TX 78746 (512) 777−4449 Fax: 512/777−4497 Email: allison@hutchesonbowers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ashlee B. Hesman Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480−420−1600 Fax: 480−420−1695

Case: 1:18-cv-169 As of: 09/25/2019 07:37 PM CDT 2 of 6

Email: ahesman@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel P. Struck Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480/420−1600 Fax: 480/420−1695 Email: dstruck@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob B. Lee Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480−420−1600 Fax: 480−420−1695 Email: jlee@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Love Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480−420−1600 Fax: 480−420−1695 Email: rlove@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Plaintiff CoreCivic, Inc.

represented by Allison L. Bowers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ashlee B. Hesman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel P. Struck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob B. Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Love (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Case: 1:18-cv-169 As of: 09/25/2019 07:37 PM CDT 3 of 6

Counter Defendant
Martha Gonzalez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Josef F. Buenker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vijay Anand Pattisapu (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas H. Padgett , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/22/2018 02/22/2018 02/22/2018
02/22/2018 02/23/2018 03/23/2018 03/28/2018 03/28/2018 03/28/2018 03/29/2018
03/29/2018
03/29/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT And Class Action ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0542−10492526), filed by Martha Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Padgett, Thomas) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
2 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Martha Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Padgett, Thomas) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
Case assigned to Judge Lee Yeakel. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (afd) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Martha Gonzalez. (afd) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
3 Summons Issued as to CoreCivic, Inc.. (afd) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Martha Gonzalez. CoreCivic, Inc. served on 3/21/2018, answer due 4/11/2018. (Padgett, Thomas) Modified on 3/23/2018 to clarify text (lt). (Entered: 03/23/2018)
5 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Allison L. Bowers on behalf of Ashlee Hesman ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542−10621581) by on behalf of CoreCivic, Inc.. (Bowers, Allison) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
6 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Allison L. Bowers on behalf of Dan Struck ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542−10621665) by on behalf of CoreCivic, Inc.. (Bowers, Allison) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Allison L. Bowers on behalf of Rachel Love ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542−10621681) by on behalf of CoreCivic, Inc.. (Bowers, Allison) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
8 ORDER GRANTING 5 Motion for Ashlee B. Hesman to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
9 ORDER GRANTING 6 Motion for Daniel P. Struck to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
10 ORDER GRANTING 7 Motion for Rachel Love to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 03/29/2018)

Case: 1:18-cv-169 As of: 09/25/2019 07:37 PM CDT 4 of 6

04/05/2018 04/05/2018 04/06/2018 05/16/2018 05/16/2018 05/22/2018 05/29/2018
06/08/2018 06/19/2018 06/20/2018 07/02/2018 07/05/2018 07/24/2018 07/25/2018
07/26/2018 08/29/2018
08/30/2018 08/30/2018

11 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
12 RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
13 ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Unopposed 11 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; CoreCivic, Inc.'s answer due 5/18/2018. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
14 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
15 ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Unopposed 14 Second Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 1 Complaint ; CoreCivic, Inc.'s answer due 6/8/2018. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
16 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Daniel P. Struck for Jacob B. Lee ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542−10823722) by on behalf of CoreCivic, Inc.. (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
17 ORDER GRANTING 16 Motion by Jacob B. Lee to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (td) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
18 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
19 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 18 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint by Martha Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Padgett, Thomas) (Entered: 06/19/2018)
20 ORDER GRANTING 19 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
21 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 18 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint by Martha Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Padgett, Thomas) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
22 ORDER GRANTING 21 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
23 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Martha Gonzalez, re 18 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Pattisapu, Vijay) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 18 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, 23 Response in Opposition to Motion and Plaintiffs' Alternative Motion for Leave to Amend by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
25 ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Unopposed 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply and Response. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
26 SUPPLEMENT to 23 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss − Notice of Supplemental Authority by Martha Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Novoa Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Novoa Transcript from Hearing on Motion to Dismiss)(Pattisapu, Vijay) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
27 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by CoreCivic, Inc., re 18 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
28 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Alternative Motion for Leave to Amend to 23 Response in Opposition to Motion by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

Case: 1:18-cv-169 As of: 09/25/2019 07:37 PM CDT 5 of 6

03/01/2019 03/01/2019 03/11/2019 03/15/2019 03/15/2019 03/21/2019
03/22/2019 03/25/2019 03/27/2019 04/02/2019 04/08/2019
04/09/2019 04/15/2019
04/15/2019 06/10/2019
07/25/2019 07/25/2019
08/07/2019

29 ORDER DENYING Defendant's 18 Motion to Dismiss. ORDER that the parties are to submit to the court a Proposed Agreed Scheduling Order on or before March 22, 2019. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
Set Deadlines: Proposed Agreed Scheduling Order due by 3/22/2019. (lt) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
30 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
31 CoreCivic's ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand , COUNTERCLAIM against All Plaintiffs by CoreCivic, Inc..(Lee, Jacob) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
32 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Lee, Jacob) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
33 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 30 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) by Martha Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Padgett, Thomas) (Entered: 03/21/2019)
34 Proposed Scheduling Order − Joint by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Lee, Jacob) (Entered: 03/22/2019)
35 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 33 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
36 ORDER SETTING Initial Pretrial Conference for 8/21/2019 at 03:30 PM before Judge Lee Yeakel. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
37 MOTION to Stay Case by CoreCivic, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 04/02/2019)
38 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Martha Gonzalez, re 30 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amicus Brief, # 2 Exhibit Order in Barrientos, # 3 Proposed Order Order)(Padgett, Thomas) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
39 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Martha Gonzalez, re 37 MOTION to Stay Case filed by CoreCivic, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Case, # 2 Proposed Order)(Padgett, Thomas) (Entered: 04/09/2019)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by CoreCivic, Inc., re 30 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed by Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
41 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by CoreCivic, Inc., re 37 MOTION to Stay Case filed by CoreCivic, Inc. (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
42 ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 30 Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal. ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 37 Motion to Stay all Proceedings. All proceedings in this court are STAYED pending resolution of any application for interlocutory appeal in this cause. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (lt) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
43 Certified Copy of ORDER of USCA Granting motion for leave to appeal.(lt) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
USCA Order 43 granting leave to appeal construed as NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by CoreCivic, Inc., USCA Case #19−50691. Fee Due by 8/8/19. Per 5th Circuit rules, the appellant has 14 days, from the filing of the Notice of Appeal, to order the transcript. To order a transcript, the appellant should fill out Form DKT−13 (Transcript Order) and follow the instructions set out on the form. This form is available in the Clerk's Office or by clicking the hyperlink above. (lt) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
Certification of the Electronic Record on Appeal has been accepted by the 5th Circuit re Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory. Attorneys are advised that they may now download the EROA from the Fifth Circuit CM/ECF site by following these

Case: 1:18-cv-169 As of: 09/25/2019 07:37 PM CDT 6 of 6

08/07/2019

instructions here (lt) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
44 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505 receipt number 100036537 re Notice of Appeal − Interlocutory,, filed by CoreCivic, Inc. (lt) (Entered: 08/07/2019)

 
 Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 37

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

MARTHA GONZALEZ,

§

individually and on behalf of all §

others similarly situated,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

§

CORECIVIC, INC.

§

§

Defendant.

§

CAUSE NO. 1:18-cv-169 A Jury is Demanded

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND CLASS ACTION Martha Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, files this original complaint against CoreCivic, Inc.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE CoreCivic is a "private prison" company that forces immigration detainees to work in forced labor camps under threat of isolation, retaliation, and other deprivations. These forced labor camps are located in Texas and across the United States. CoreCivic makes a mockery of the Constitution and the saws of the United States of America by maintaining these forced labor camps in violation of the human rights of the individual detainees. CoreCivic profits mightily from the use of these forced labor camps and has posted profits in excess of $1.5 billion annually. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of Ms. Gonzalez and all other similarly situated
1

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 2 of 37
individuals for compensation and to bring a stop to this terrible Un-American and unconstitutional practice.
2. Parties 2.1 Martha Gonzalez is a current T-1 Visa holder and resident of Harris County, Texas. Ms. Gonzalez was a civil immigration detainee who worked at the Defendant's Laredo Detention Center, Laredo Texas, the Defendant's T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas, and the La Salle County Detention Center at various times from May 2016 through August 2017. 2.2 Defendant CoreCivic, Inc., is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business at 10 Burton Hills Blvd, Nashville, Tennessee 37125.
3. Jurisdiction and Venue 3.1 The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case arises out of violations of the federal Trafficking in Victims Protection Act under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, et seq. (the "TPVA"). 3.2 This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because, (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, (2) the proposed Class consists of
2

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 3 of 37
more than 100 class members; and (3) none of the exceptions under the subsection apply to this action.
3.3 This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, CoreCivic, because CoreCivic is registered to and actually does business in the State of Texas. Furthermore, CoreCivic has more than sufficient minimum contacts in Texas. CoreCivic has facilities in Texas and specifically in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas which are implicated in this suit and from which all class members will have been detained.
3.4 Plaintiff was detained for a time in the Laredo Detention Center, the La Salle County Regional Detention Center, and the Hutto Residential Center, all of which are facilities owned by or under the control of Defendant. Therefore, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' claims alleged in this lawsuit occurred in this district.
4. FACTS SUPPORTING RELIEF COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4.1 Ms. Gonzalez and similarly situated individuals are current and former civil immigration detainees. Ms. Gonzalez brings this proposed class action on behalf of all civil immigration detainees who were incarcerated and forced to work by CoreCivic, a for-profit corporation engaged in the business of owning and
3

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 4 of 37
operating detention facilities and prisons from February 21, 2007 to the opt-out date, inclusive (the "Class Period.") CoreCivic's Core Business: Forced Labor Camps
4.2 CoreCivic owns and/or operates forced labor camps around the country, including but not limited to, the Laredo Detention Center, a detention center located in Laredo, Texas, and the Hutto Residential Detention Center, located in Taylor, Texas. The La Salle County Regional Detention Center, located in Encinal, Texas, is available and used by CoreCivic. Upon information and belief, this forced labor camp is owned by La Salle County.
4.3 CoreCivic unlawfully forces, coerces, and uses civil immigration detainees to clean, maintain, and operate their facility. In some instances, CoreCivic pays detainees $1 to $2 per day, and in other instances detainees are not compensated with wages at all for their labor and services.
4.4 The use of forced labor is quite lucrative. Replacing paid workers with forced labor results in massive cost savings. CoreCivic uses forced labor rather than hiring workers and paying a proper minimum wage, overtime, and benefits. The common narrative that "immigrants" are taking American jobs is the business model for CoreCivic. This business model is so profitable that CoreCivic reported $1.79 billion in total revenues in 2016.
4

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 5 of 37
Forced Labor Camp Assignments and Duties 4.5 Ms. Gonzalez and Class Members were engaged, suffered, and
permitted to work by CoreCivic at, without limitation, the Laredo Detention Center and the Hutto Residential Center. CoreCivic controlled the wages, hours, and working conditions of Plaintiff and Class Members. CoreCivic supervised Plaintiff and Class Members. CoreCivic forced Ms. Gonzalez and Class Members to, without limitation:
a. scrub bathrooms, showers, and toilets; b. clean and maintain CoreCivic's on-site medical facility; c. clean floors, and windows; d. clean patient rooms and medical staff offices; e. sweep, mop, strip, and wax floors throughout the medical facility and the entire facility; f. launder medical facility laundry; g. launder detainee laundry; h. prepare and serve detainee meals; i. assist in preparing catered meals for law enforcement events sponsored by CoreCivic; j. perform clerical work for CoreCivic; k. sort and prepare clothing for newly arriving detainees;
5

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 6 of 37
l. provide barber services to detainees; m. run and manage the law library; n. clean intake areas and the solitary confinement unit; o. clean and prepare vacant portions of the facility for newly arriving detainees; p. clean the facility's warehouse; and, q. maintain the exterior and landscaping of the CoreCivic buildings. 4.6 Some of the detainees were forced to work without any pay at all. 4.7 Some detainees who "volunteered" for such work were paid $1 to $2 per day. The "money" paid, however, was not available for outside purchases while detained. These payments were made and the only option Plaintiff and/or Class Member had for purchases were those available in the CoreCivic "company store" or commissary. Threats, Intimidation, and Retaliation Keep The Work Force In Line 4.8 CoreCivic maintained this forced labor camp by threatening punishment, by intimidation, and by retaliation. CoreCivic threatened detainees who refused to work with confinement, physical restraint, substantial and sustained restrictions, deprivation, violation of their liberty, and solitary confinement. CoreCivic made frequent examples of individual detainees who complained or refused to work. CoreCivic carried out this plan with the intent to maintain and
6

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 7 of 37
continue the use of forced labor and other services. CoreCivic also used these punishments to maintain a docile and unresisting detainee population.
4.9 These conditions were so draconian and harsh that the threats and the actual punishments caused Plaintiff and others putative class members severe physical and mental pain and suffering.
4.10 CoreCivic's acts were carried out with intent, malice, oppression, fraud, and duress. CoreCivic acted with complete disregard of the rights and liberty of the detainees, treating civil detainees as slave labor and without regard to their dignity or humanity.
Common Practices Across Institutions: Laredo, Hutto, and La Salle 4.11 The Laredo Detention Center and the Hutto Residential Center are both owned and operated by CoreCivic. La Salle is available to CoreCivic but upon information and belief, that forced labor camp is maintained and operated by the County of La Salle. 4.12 Detainees are routinely transferred between the three facilities and have been for years. 4.13 Upon information and belief, the three facilities share similar policies and procedures which are enforced company-wide. 4.14 The total number of immigration detainees who were subject to the payment of one or two dollars or were forced into labor are unknown at this time.
7

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 8 of 37
The practices appear to be spread across CoreCivic, being implemented in slightly different fashion, but maintaining sufficient similarity to describe the practices as widespread and continuous. CoreCivic's Practices Hurt Detainees and Unjustly Enrich the Corporation
4.15 CoreCivic has been wrongly and unjustly enriched by the use of forced labor, human trafficking practices, and paying one or two dollars a day. These business practices are unlawful and exploitative. These business practices leave CoreCivic with an unfair business advantage -- an uncompensated labor force -- that is unavailable (and illegal) for any other business in America. CoreCivic retains revenues which are then turned into profit by not being required to use proper labor practices and as a result of being permitted to continue and exploiting forced labor and illegal compensation practices.
4.16 CoreCivic should not be permitted to continue to amass profits and revenues based upon such egregious, unconstitutional, illegal and unfair labor practices.
4.17 CoreCivic's actions are a continuing pattern and course of conduct. These are not isolated incidents, but constitute an institutional decision to exploit the immigration detainees that are trusted to their care while awaiting a decision on immigration status and other matters.
8

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 9 of 37
4.18 Immigration detainees are not prisoners. They have been convicted of no crime. CoreCivic treats these human beings as a slave labor force. CoreCivic does not provide basic human dignity to these people and as a result causes serious and severe mental distress and anguish.
4.19 The conduct has been happening to Plaintiff and others for years, but has not been revealed in its full extent until the present day. Plaintiff was released from detention in August of 2017 and has sued within sufficient time to cover each and every incident of her detention.
4.20 Plaintiff and others similarly situated were/are not aware of the true facts regarding the full extent of CoreCivic's unlawful and illegal acts. Plaintiff and other similarly situated would have lacked the ability to have earlier discovered the true facts until the present due to false statement made by CoreCivic, its employees and agents, regarding the legality of the one or two dollar a day payments and the forced labor and related actions. The For-Profit Detention Industry Abuses The Immigration System.
4.21 CoreCivic is a massive company that operates hundreds of private prisons across the United States.
4.22 CoreCivic's facilities are used both for incarcerating prisoners, that is, individuals who have been convicted of a crime and for incarcerating civil
9

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 10 of 37
immigration detainees. The facilities are dedicated to one or the other. CoreCivic does not mix convicted prisoners with immigration detainees in the same facility.
4.23 Across the country, hundreds of undocumented individuals lacking legal permission to enter or remain in the United States are, during the course of any given day, arrested and typically brought to a detention facility. Those individuals are then placed into a removal proceeding in front of an immigration judge. The charges against them are civil, not criminal, in nature.
4.24 These individuals may include refugees who are seeking asylum. Individuals detained at the border are only released only on a case-by-case basis by the authority of the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
4.25 ICE uses a combination of publicly and privately owned and operated facilities to detain immigrants. Those in detention include immigrants in the country illegally, asylum seekers, green card holders, and those awaiting immigration hearings (referred to as "detainees" or "civil immigration detainees").
4.26 Nine out of ten of the country's largest immigration detention facilities are operated by private companies like CoreCivic. These facilities hold approximately two-thirds of the civil immigration detainees in a system that currently keeps more than 31,000 people in custody on a typical day.
4.27 The for-profit civil immigration detention business is worth over $3 billion dollars per year. These centers are not just located solely in border regions,
10

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 11 of 37
but are scattered across the county because individuals are detained in every single state in the United States.
4.28 Companies such as CoreCivic deny engaging in lobbying efforts, but private prison corporations such as CoreCivic routinely specifically target legislators over immigration "reform." The companies' success in lobbying for immigration detention has been so successful that by 2015, CoreCivic derived 51% of its revenue from federal contracts.
4.29 In March of 2017, the Trump administration announced that the United States' civil immigration detention capacity would be increased by 20,000 beds (over four-hundred fifty percent (450%)). This signals the largest increase in immigrant detention since World War II and is, in essence, a "go directly to jail and work for free card" from which CoreCivic derives nearly $1 billion a year in revenue. Common Relief Sought
4.30 The Plaintiff and Class Representative in this case seeks injunctive relief requiring CoreCivic to implement and maintain policies and practices to comply with all applicable laws and regulations designed to protect human rights, prevent and remedy those types of unlawful trafficking and forced labor practices, and protect detainees' employment and civil rights and their well-being and safety, as well as restitution, damages, statutory remedies, disgorgement, and other further relief this Court may deem proper.
11

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 12 of 37
4.31 Plaintiff also seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the difference between the fair value of the labor or work they performed and what they were paid ($1 to $2 per day). CoreCivic violated federal law when CoreCivic physically forced, intimidated, threatened, and mentally coerced mentally Plaintiff and Class Members to work for no pay or virtually no pay. Plaintiff was forced by CoreCivic to clean the "pods" where they were housed, and were forced to clean, maintain, and operate other areas of the CoreCivic detention facilities under threat of punishment, including but not limited to lockdown and/or solitary confinement.
Martha Gonzalez's Path To This Lawsuit and Representative Plaintiff 4.32 Ms. Martha Gonzalez first came to the United States in 2008. Ms.
Gonzalez is from Oaxaca, Mexico. Ms. Gonzalez and her partner had a child in Mexico and then came to the United States. Ms. Gonzalez gave birth to a child in the United States.
4.33 Ms. Gonzalez's partner was deported in 2012 and Ms. Gonzalez followed him back to Mexico.
4.34 The partner began abusing Ms. Gonzalez in Mexico, physically and mentally. Ms. Gonzalez went to the Mexican authorities, but received no assistance.
4.35 Ms. Gonzalez, to avoid the abuse, returned to the United States.
12

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 13 of 37
4.36 Ms. Gonzalez has two children with this partner. One was born in Mexico, and the other was born in the United States. The one born in Mexico remains in Mexico and will likely be sponsored by Ms. Gonzalez at an appropriate time. The other child lives in the United States.
4.37 Ms. Gonzalez made her way to the United States using the dangerous routes available through "coyotes." Ms. Gonzalez's attempts to cross the border using coyotes did not go well.
4.38 Ms. Gonzalez and the coyotes were picked up and deported. During the deportation, Ms. Gonzalez was separated from and lost track of her daughter. The coyotes threated Ms. Gonzalez with violence to herself and her daughter if Ms. Gonzalez refused their request to act as a prostitute. Ms. Gonzalez had no choice.
4.39 Ultimately, Ms. Gonzalez was able to break free of the coyotes. She still did not know the location of her daughter, so she went to US Immigration. US Immigration was able to help Ms. Gonzalez reunite with her daughter in the United States.
4.40 The United States Immigration Service, however, remanded Ms. Gonzalez into custody for deportation proceedings. Ms. Gonzalez Goes Through the Deportation Process
4.41 The United States treats immigrants from Mexico differently from those immigrations from Central America or other locations further south.
13

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 14 of 37
4.42 Immigrants from Mexico are sent to a place called a "yelera." At the yelera, Ms. Gonzalez was given the choice of accepting or fighting her deportation.
4.43 This time, Ms. Gonzalez decided to seek a visa pursuant to her rights under the immigration laws and she informed the authorities.
4.44 Because of her decision to assert her rights under the law and obtain a visa, the United States initially sent Ms. Gonzalez to the Laredo Detention Center in Laredo Texas.
4.45 The Laredo Detention Center is a facility that is owned and operated by CoreCivic for the benefit of the United States of America and specifically for the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ("ICE").
4.46 Because Ms. Gonzalez had been deported once before, she was required to stay in the detention center while her case worked its way through the administrative and legal process.
4.47 Ms. Gonzalez was in the Laredo Detention Center form May 10, 2016 through May 14, 2016.
4.48 ICE then transferred Ms. Gonzalez to the Hutto Residential Detention Center ("Hutto") in Taylor, Texas. Ms. Gonzalez was in Hutto for approximately a month and one-half, through June 27, 2016. Then, ICE transferred Ms. Gonzalez back to the Laredo Detention Center.
14

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 15 of 37
4.49 Ms. Gonzalez was held in the Laredo Detention Center from June 27, 2016 through August 1, 2017, when she was released. Ms. Gonzalez is Forced To Work
4.50 CoreCivic runs forced labor camps using the immigration detainees as their workforce.
4.51 CoreCivic set up a process and a system based upon the use of forced labor in order to maximize its profits and cut labor costs by forcing immigration detainees to work for the company as low-paid or unpaid labor or face the consequences.
4.52 Specifically, the immigration detainees were forced to work, and if they refused, they were subjected to various punishments, including but not limited to solitary confinement and deprivation of facilities. Ms. Gonzalez was forced into this labor and observed many of her fellow detainees being forced into such work.
4.53 CoreCivic paid Ms. Gonzalez either one dollar or two dollars per day as "wages" for the forced labor.
4.54 Some of the individual detainees, upon information and belief, were not paid any wage at all. Laredo Detention Center: Threats and Intimidation Create Forced Labor
4.55 Prior to obtaining her visa, Ms. Gonzalez spent the majority of her time in the Laredo Detention Center forced labor camp.
15

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 16 of 37
4.56 Ms. Gonzalez worked virtually every day. The work was demeaning, back-breaking, and forced. Ms. Gonzalez worked in the kitchen, sorting clothing, and other duties. She earned $1.00 per day for a while and was later bumped up to $1.50 per day. Ms. Gonzalez worked every single day.
4.57 CoreCivic continually told Ms. Gonzalez and the other immigration detainees that the work was voluntary. However, the work was only "voluntary" as long as the immigration detainee was willing to suffer the consequences of refusal.
4.58 CoreCivic made it very clear, through words and deeds, that unless the detainees worked, CoreCivic would increase their misery.
4.59 CoreCivic, for example and without limitation, would deny privileges such as a toothbrushes or toothpaste. Women were frequently made to wait hours and hours until sanitary or other feminine products were made available if they did not work. This action was not only dehumanizing and humiliating, but it created a health hazard that endangered the remaining detainees.
4.60 Personal hygiene products were denied to detainees if they did not work or if they asked for days off.
4.61 The CoreCivic guards would ignore or deny requests by detainees for basic human services who did not work or asked to take days off.
16

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 17 of 37
4.62 These actions were intended to and actually did intimidate the detainees. These actions provided specific and sometimes painful consequences to not agreeing to and submitting to the forced labor requirements of CoreCivic.
4.63 In stark contrast, if a detainee worked, then that detainee could ask for needed items and the CoreCivic employees would provide them without any delay or hassle. Hutto Residential Detention Center Was Also A Forced Labor Camp
4.64 CoreCivic owns and operates the Hutto Residential Detention Center in Encinal, Texas. Hutto's facilities were nicer than the Laredo Detention Center and there was more freedom during off time, but the work was the same -- forced labor -- and was conducted using the same system of reward and punishment.
4.65 The Hutto Residential Center was where Ms. Gonzalez was able to contact a lawyer to begin the process that would result in her obtaining a T-1 Visa.
4.66 CoreCivic forced Ms. Gonzalez to work for the same dollar and/or two dollars a day. Individuals were forced into labor with scarcely any payments at all.
4.67 CoreCivic again established and perpetuated a system that created a business model dependent upon the forced labor of the detainees in order to create and maintain high profit margins and low labor costs.
4.68 CoreCivic would punish individual detainees who refused to work or requested time off in the same fashion as they did at the Laredo Detention Center.
17

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 18 of 37
4.69 CoreCivic's practices at Hutto were demeaning and humiliating. Punishment For Complaints About Worms in the Food
4.70 At times, CoreCivic demonstrated its complete power over the immigrant detainees.
4.71 Ms. Gonzalez discovered worms in her food during one meal. Ms. Gonzalez prepared a written complaint and got other detainees to sign.
4.72 In response to this valid complaint about tainted food, CoreCivic employees responded to the complaint by stating stated that one of the women in the Laredo Detention Center had chickenpox and placing all of the women in quarantine, sending them to the La Salle County Regional Detention Center.
4.73 The La Salle Detention Center was particularly foul. The food provided to the detainees was spoiled and the water was contaminated with dog hairs because of the canine units that patrolled the area.
4.74 Effectively, CoreCivic manufactured a false chickenpox outbreak to punish Ms. Gonzalez and the other detainees for speaking out and complaining about a lack of edible food. Ms. Gonzalez's Legal Status: Human Trafficking Visa
4.75 On July 31, 2017, Ms. Gonzalez had her final court date and was granted a T-Visa which she received in October of 2017.
18

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 19 of 37
4.76 Ms. Gonzalez now resides and works -- entirely legally -- in Harris County.
5. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 5.1 Ms. Gonzalez brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of herself and all members of a class of immigrant detainees who were required to participate in coerced, involuntary, and unpaid or underpaid work during the time that they were in residence at CoreCivic facilities. The Class will be preliminarily defined as: All civil immigration detainees who performed labor for no pay or at a rate of compensation of $1.00 to $2.00 per day for work performed for CoreCivic at any detention facility owned or operated by it from February 20, 2007 to the applicable opt-out date, inclusive. 5.2 Excluded from the Class are the Defendant herein, law enforcement agencies and personnel, members of the foregoing persons' immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity or person in which Defendant has or had a controlling or supervisory interest or control over at all relevant times. 5.3 Plaintiff satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and predominance prerequisites for suing as representative parties pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Numerosity
19

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 20 of 37
5.4 The exact number of proposed Class Members is currently not known, but is believed to consist of thousands if not tens of thousands of former or current CoreCivic detainees who have been forced and/or coerced to work, whether for one or two dollars a day or no pay whatsoever, making joinder of each individual Class Member impracticable. Commonality
5.5 Common questions of law and fact exist for the proposed Class' claims and predominate over questions affecting only individual Class Members. Common questions include, without limitation:
a. whether Plaintiffs and Class Members performed compensable work and were considered employees being suffered or permitted to work;
b. whether Plaintiffs and the Class Members were unpaid, paid $1 or $2 per day for their labor;
c. whether forcing and coercing Plaintiffs and the Class Members to perform forced labor for free or for $1 or $2 per day constitutes a violation of each Class Members' TVPA, human rights, United States labor law, and other statutory and common law rights as set forth herein;
d. what monitoring, training, limiting, and supervisory policies, procedures, and practices should CoreCivic be required to implement to ensure
20

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 21 of 37
ongoing protection of each Class Member's TVAP, and other legal rights and as part of any prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief ordered by the Court;
e. whether CoreCivic acted deliberately or negligently by unlawfully, without limitation:
i. failing to adequately protect Class Members TVPA and other rights;
ii. forcing and coercing detainees to perform forced labor; iii. failing to follow applicable laws; and iv. failure to maintain adequate monitoring, training, limiting, and supervisory procedures, policies, procedures, and practices; and, f. whether Plaintiff and Class Members may obtain damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory, prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief against CoreCivic. Typicality 5.6 Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the proposed Class because, among other things, Plaintiff and Class Members legal claims all arise from CoreCivic's unlawful practices, and Plaintiffs and Class members sustained similar injuries and statutory damages as a result of CoreCivic's uniform illegal conduct.
21

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 22 of 37
Adequacy 5.7 Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Their interests do not conflict with Class Members' interests and they have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex and class action litigation to vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Class. In addition to satisfying the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for maintaining a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) and (3), Fed. R. Civ. P.
5.8 Common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members and a Class action is superior to individual litigation because:
a. The amount of damages available to individual Plaintiffs are insufficient to make litigation addressing CoreCivic's conduct economically feasible in the absence of the Class action procedure;
b. Individualized litigation would present a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system; and
c. The Class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of a single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
22

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 23 of 37
5.9 In addition, Class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1) or (2) because:
a. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual members of the proposed class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for CoreCivic;
b. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class Members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and,
c. CoreCivic has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the proposed Class, thereby making final injunctive relief or declaratory relief described herein appropriate with respect to the proposed Class as a whole.
6. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, et seq. (Individually and Class Cause of Action) 6.1 Plaintiff and Class Members incorporate by reference all foregoing averments of fact as if repeated herein verbatim.
23

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 24 of 37
6.2 The Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act protects individuals
such as plaintiffs and Class Members from being forced into labor. The law reads
in pertinent part:
Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of, the following means - (1) by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threatens of physical restraint to that person or another person; (2) by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another person; (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process; or (4) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint, shall be punished as provided under subsection (d).
6.3 Plaintiffs and Class Members were forced, coerced, and made to
perform labor and services, including working for free or for effectively free at the
rates of One or Two Dollars per day by means of:
a. force, threats of force, physical restraint, and threats of physical
restraint;
b. serious harm and threats of serious harm; and,
c. abuse and threatened abuse of law or legal process to Plaintiff and the
Class Members, and by means of a scheme, plan, pattern, and uniform policy
intended to cause Plaintiffs and the Class to believe that, if they did not perform such
labor or services, that they would suffer serious harm and/or physical restraint.
d. Threats and actual acts that exposed the Plaintiff and Class Members to
worsening conditions as a threat to continue to work.
24

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 25 of 37
6.4 CoreCivic was unjustly enriched by the unlawful practice of forcing and coercing Plaintiff and the Class Members to perform uncompensated or illegally low-wage compensations through human trafficking. By exploiting these unlawful practices CoreCivic materially and significantly reduced its labor costs and expenses, in addition to increasing its profits.
6.5 CoreCivic violated the law by forcing and coercing Plaintiff and Class Members to engage in labor that was without pay or with illegally low pay in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589, et seq.
6.6 CoreCivic committed the illegal and unlawful offense(s) of Forced Labor against the Plaintiff and the Class Members under 18 U.S.C. § 1589, et seq.
6.7 CoreCivic knowingly and financially benefitted from implementing and participating in a venture, plan, scheme, pattern of conduct, and practice, CoreCivic knew, or should have known, was unlawful and in violation of the Law of the United States of America, 18 U.S.C. § 1589, et seq.
6.8 CoreCivic has violated the law and the remedies provided by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1593 and 1595(a) should be imposed and these remedies are sought by Plaintiff and Class Members.
6.9 Specifically, the Court shall order restitution in the full amount of the victim's losses, as determined by the Court. The full amount of the victim's losses shall be the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim's
25

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 26 of 37
services or labor or the value of the victim's labor as guaranteed under the minimum wage and overtime guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
6.10 Plaintiff and Class Members are also entitled to damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, for which they now sue.
6.11 Plaintiff and Class Members request that the Court issue an order of declaratory relief declaring CoreCivic's practice(s) involving forced labor and human trafficking -- forcing and coercing Plaintiff and Class Members to perform labor and services under threat of confinement, physical restraint, substantial and sustained restrict, deprivation, solitary confinement, and retaliator transfer to other facilities -- to be illegal and unlawful.
6.12 Plaintiff and Class Members request the Court to grant an injunction requiring CoreCivic to cease its unlawful practices described herein and enjoin CoreCivic from forcing and coercing Plaintiffs and the Class Members to perform labor and services under threat of confinement, physical restraint, substantial and sustained restriction, deprivation, solitary confinement, and retaliatory transfer to other facilities.
6.13 Plaintiff and the Class Members request the Court to enter and injunction in connection with the foregoing order that will require CoreCivic to:
26

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 27 of 37
a. Engage a third-party ombudsman as well as internal compliance personnel to monitor, conduct inspection, and audit CoreCivic's safeguards and procedures on a periodic basis;
b. Audit, test, and train its internal personnel regarding any new or modified safeguards and procedures;
c. Conduct regular checks and tests on its safeguards and procedures; d. Periodically conduct internal training and education to inform internal personnel how to identify violations when they occur and what to do in response; and e. Periodically and meaningfully education its personnel and detainees about their labor and human trafficking rights through, without limitation, educational programs and classes upon detention, as well as any steps that must be taken to safeguard such rights. 6.14 Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs and the Class Members request that the Court enter an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) awarding Plaintiffs and the Class Members compensatory and punitive damages. 6.15 Plaintiff and the Class Members request this Court to enter an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1593 awarding Plaintiff and Class Members mandatory
27

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 28 of 37
restitution in addition to the recovery of their reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).
6.16 Plaintiff and Class Members also seek pre-and-post-judgment interest as permitted by law. 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).
7. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence (Plaintiff and Class Members) 7.1 Plaintiff and Class Members incorporate by reference all foregoing averments of fact as if repeated herein verbatim. 7.2 In engaging Plaintiff and the Class Members to provide labor and services, CoreCivic owed a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in complying with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and to furnish a safe working place for its employees. 7.3 This duty includes, but is not limited to, taking reasonable measures to implement and maintain reasonable procedures to provide a safe working
28

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 29 of 37
environment and workplace and to protect the rights of Class Members in compliance with applicable law, including but not limited to procedures and policies:
a. to supervise, restrict, limit, and determine whether any Plaintiffs and the Class Members were subject to forced labor or illegal pay practices by CoreCivic or perform other labor and services under threat of punishment, confinement, physical restraint, and deprivation of liberty;
b. to notify Plaintiff and Class Members of their rights under the TVPA; and
c. when and how to notify Plaintiff and the Class Members of CoreCivic's unlawful forced labor practices.
7.4 In providing services to the Plaintiff and the Class Members, CoreCivic owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care in the following manner, including without limitation:
a. adequately providing a safe working environment and workplace; b. adequately protecting the rights of Class Members in compliance with applicable law; c. prohibiting forced labor or illegal pay practices with respect to Plaintiff and Class Members and adequately insuring that such practices were not undertaken; d. adequately ensuring that Plaintiff and the Class Members had a safe work environment; and
29

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 30 of 37
e. protecting the rights of Plaintiff and the Class Members under the TVPA.
7.5 CoreCivic had a duty and a responsibility to take adequate and reasonable measure to ensure that forced labor and illegal pay practices were not applied to Plaintiff and Class Members.
7.6 The Duty that CoreCivic owed to Plaintiff and Class Members to protect their rights is clarified by the Federal TVPA which recognizes the importance of preventing the crime of trafficking of a person for forced labor or services.
7.7 CoreCivic also had a duty to timely disclose and/or warn Plaintiff and Class Members of their rights under the TVPA, state law, or any other law and applicable regulations. Timely disclosure is necessary and appropriate so that Plaintiff and Class Members could, among other things, timely pursued and exhausted available remedies, and undertaken appropriate measures to avoid, prevent, or mitigate the violations of their rights under applicable laws.
7.8 There is a causal connection between CoreCivic's failures to take reasonable measures to provide a safe and lawful work environment and timely disclosure of Plaintiff and the Class Members' rights and the injury to Plaintiff and the Class members.
7.9 CoreCivic's breach of its duty to Plaintiff and the Class Members is a proximate cause of damages to Plaintiff and Class Members.
30

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 31 of 37
7.10 CoreCivic is legally responsible for such unlawful violations of Plaintiff and the Class Members' human and labor law rights and their right to a safe working environment because it failed to take reasonable measures in connection with such environment. If CoreCivic had taken reasonable measures in connection with their employment and Plaintiff and Class Members, their legal rights would not have been violated.
7.11 A special relationship exists between CoreCivic and Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are immigration detainees who have no choice but to perform the forced labor when and how CoreCivic demands it. If CoreCivic is not held accountable for failing to take reasonable measures to protect the human rights and labor law rights of its detainees, CoreCivic will not take the steps that are necessary to protect against future violations of such rights.
7.12 It was reasonably foreseeable that if CoreCivic built a system predicated upon forced labor and did not take reasonable measures to protect the human rights and labor law rights of Plaintiff and Class Members that the policy of forcing detainees to work for free or for one or two dollars would violate those rights.
7.13 CoreCivic knew or should have known that its actions would result in violations of the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members.
31

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 32 of 37
7.14 CoreCivic breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in providing a safe work environment for, and protecting the human rights and labor law rights of, Plaintiff and Class Members.
7.15 CoreCivic breached its duty by acting as follows, including but not limited to:
a. failing to implement and maintain adequate measures to safeguard detainees' rights;
b. failing to monitor its operations to identify unlawful activity; c. requiring and/or allowing Plaintiff and the Class to work in an unsafe environment; and d. failing to otherwise prevent human rights and labor law abuses. 7.16 CoreCivic breached its duty to timely warn or notify Plaintiffs and the Class Members about its unlawful forced labor and pay practices and programs. CoreCivic has failed to issue any warnings to its current and former detainees affected by these unlawful practices. 7.17 CoreCivic knew or should have known that its practices would violate the law. 7.18 But for CoreCivic's failure to implement and maintain adequate measure to provide a safe working environment for, and protect the human rights and labor law rights of, Plaintiff and the Class members, and its failure to monitor
32

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 33 of 37
its operations to identify unlawful forced labor and illegal pay practices, among other violations of labor law, Plaintiff and Class Members' rights would not have been violated and Class Members would not be at a heightened risk of unlawful forced labor and other labor law violations in the future.
7.19 CoreCivic's negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff and the Class Members, and in violating their human rights and labor law rights. As a direct and proximate cause and result of CoreCivic's failure to exercise reasonable care and use reasonable measures to provide a safe working environment and safeguard the human rights and labor law rights of Plaintiff and the Class Members, Plaintiff and the Class Members were subjected to forced labor and the labor law violations set forth in this Complaint. Class Members face a heighted risk of such unlawful practices in the future.
7.20 Neither Plaintiff nor other Class Members contributed to the unlawful conduct set forth herein, nor did they contribute to CoreCivic's unlawful forced labor practices and other labor law violations.
7.21 Plaintiff and the Class Members seek compensatory damages and exemplary damages. Plaintiff and Class Members seek pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
8. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
33

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 34 of 37
Unjust Enrichment and/or Quantum Meruit (Plaintiff and Class Members)
8.1 Plaintiff and Class Members incorporate by reference all foregoing averments of fact as if repeated herein verbatim.
8.2 CoreCivic received a benefit from the Plaintiff and Class Members. 8.3 CoreCivic retained the fruits of the labor and other actions of the Plaintiff and Class Members and retained this benefit at the expense of the Plaintiff and Class Members. 8.4 CoreCivic was the recipient of valuable services rendered by Plaintiff and the Class Members. CoreCivic accepted such valuable services. 8.5 Plaintiff and Class Members intended to be paid properly and legally. 8.6 CoreCivic knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the Class Members expected to be paid properly and legally. 8.7 Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the amounts by which CoreCivic was unjustly enriched or the quantum meruit of the fruits of their labor. 8.8 Plaintiff and Class Members seek appropriate damages determined by the finder of fact and/or jury. 8.9 Plaintiff and Class Members, to the extent permitted by law, seek recovery of a reasonable and necessary attorney's fee and costs.
34

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 35 of 37
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff and Class Members hereby demand trial by jury of all facts permitted under their Seventh Amendment Rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Martha Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, request that the Defendant be service with citation and service of process and required to answer with the appropriate time and that the Court: a. Certify this case as a class action on behalf of the Class Members defined above, appoint Martha Gonzalez as class representative, and appoint The Buenker Law Firm as Class counsel; b. Award declaratory and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and Class Members; c. Award injunctive relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Class Members; d. Award restitution, damages, treble damages, and punitive damages to Plaintiff and Class Members in an amount to be determined at trial; e. Order disgorgement of CoreCivic's unjustly acquired revenue, profits, and other benefits resulting from its unlawful conduct for the benefit of Plaintiff and Class Members in an equitable and efficient manner determined by the Court;
35

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 36 of 37
f. Order the imposition of a constructive trust upon CoreCivic such that its enrichment, benefit, and ill-gotten gains may be allocated and distributed equitably by the Court to and for the benefit of Plaintiff and the Class Members;
g. Award Plaintiff and Class Members reasonable attorney's fees and costs;
h. Award Plaintiffs and Class Members pre- and post-judgment interest in amounts permitted by law; and,
i. Award such other and further relief that Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled under law and equity.
Respectfully Submitted, THE BUENKER LAW FIRM /s/ Thomas H. Padgett, Jr. Thomas H. Padgett, Jr. Attorney-in-Charge TBA No. 15405420 tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com Josef F. Buenker TBA No. 03316860 jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, Texas 77018 713-868-3388 Telephone 713-683-9940 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR
36

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 37 of 37
PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS
37

 
 Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 29 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

';
;

MARTHA GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY §

AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS

§

PLAINTIFF,

§

§

V.

§

§

CORECIVIC, INC.,

§

DEFENDANT.

§

CIVIL NO. 1:18-CV-169-LY

[I) 1 0

Beforethe court are Defendant Corecivic's Motion to Dismiss filed June 8, 2018 (Doe. #18);

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion for Leaveto Amend

filed July 24, 2018 (Doe. #23); Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed August 29, 2018 (Doe. #26); Defendant Corecivic's Reply in

Support of Motion to Dismiss filed August 30, 2018 (Doe. #27); and Defendant Corecivic's

Resposne to Plaintiff's Alternative Motion for Leave to Amend filed August 30, 2018 (Doe. #28).

Having considered the motion, responses, replies, and supplemental authority, the court concludes

that the motion to dismiss should be denied for the reasons to follow.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Martha Gonzalez, a Mexican national, alleges that she illegally entered the United

States in May 2016, voluntarily surrendering to immigration officials. Gonzalez was taken into

custody by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), and detained at the Laredo

Detention Center, in Laredo, Texas, and the T. Don Hutto Residential Center, in Taylor, Texas,

pending her deportation proceedings. These detention centers are owned and operated by Defendant

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 29 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 7
CoreCivic, Inc. for the benefit of the United States of America and ICE, detaining immigrants in the
country illegally, asylum seekers, green card holders, and those awaiting immigration hearings. Gonzalez contends that during her detention she was paid only $1 or $1.50 per day to clean
pods, work in the kitchen, sort laundry, and perform other duties under threat of punishment, including but not limited to lockdown and solitary confinement. Gonzalez further alleges that other detainees were forced to work without pay. Gonzalez alleges that if detainees refused to work CoreCivic threatened them with confinement, physical restraint, substantial and sustained restrictions, deprivation, violation of their liberty, and solitary confinement, including the denial or delay of hygiene products. Those who did work were provided items without any delay or hassle.
Gonzalez filed her complaint on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated.
The putative class is define as "[a]ll civil immigration detainees who performed labor for no pay or
at a rate of compensation of $1.00 to $2.00 per day for work performed for CoreCivic at any
detention facility owned or operated by it from February 20, 2007 to the applicable opt-out date,
inclusive." Gonzalez's complaintraises the followingthree claims: (1) a violation ofthe Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1589; (2) negligence; and (3) unjust enrichment. Gonzalez seeks declarative and injunctive relief, as well as restitution, compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1 2(b)(6) allows for dismissal of an action "for failure to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted." Although a complaint attackedby a Rule 1 2(b)(6) motion does not need detailed factual allegations, in order to avoid dismissal, the plaintiff's factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell At!. Corp. v.
2

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 29 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 7
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397,401(5th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff's obligation "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation ofthe elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. The Supreme Court expounded on the Twombly standard, explaining that a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (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. In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court must construe the complaint liberally and accept all of the plaintiff's factual allegations in the complaint as true. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191,205 (5th
Cir. 2009).
III. ANALYSIS Pursuant to the Trafficking Victim Protection Act ("TVPA"), "{w]hoever knowingly provides
or obtains the labor or services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of' various
impennissible means, including by means of "any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint." 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a) (2015). Section 1595 permits "an individual who is a victim of a violation of [section 1589]" to bring "civil
action against the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything
of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter)." 18 U.S.C. § 1595.
CoreCivic' s motion to dismiss asserts firstthat the TVPA does not extend to labor performed by immigration detainees held in a private detention center. CoreCivic argues that a literal
3

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 29 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 7
application of sections 1589 and 1595 would go far beyond Congress's stated intent and suggests that purpose of the TVPA is "to deter human trafficking, punish human traffickers, and protect victims of human trafficking of slavery," and that "Congress did not intend to criminalize labor by
detainees in lawful custody." CoreCivic further argues that it would be both extreme and absurd to apply a forced labor statute to lawfully-detained civil-immigration detainees.
Because neither ICE nor CoreCivic transported Gonzalez across national borders, CoreCivic
asserts that section 1589 should not apply. CoreCivic argues that section 1589's use of "whoever"
excludes the federal government, see 1 U.S.C. § 1 (2016), and thus excludes private detention centers performing a "federal function," such as detention. See Doe v. United States, 831 F .3 d 309,
316(5th Cir. 2016) (determining that CoreCivic, then known as Corrections Corporation ofAmerica,
"in housing alien detainees according to ICE specifications, [was] performing a federal function" and thus susceptible to 1983 claims).
CoreCivic seeks for the court to read Congress's purpose, evident from TVPA's congressional findings, into the statute. Hqwever, "[t]he preeminent canon of statutory interpretation requires us to 'presume that [the] legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.' " BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992)). If the statutory text is unambiguous, the inquiry ends there. See id..
CoreCivic's argument fails to identify any ambiguity in the language or exceptional circumstances to depart from the plain language of the statute. The Sixth Circuit addressed a similar argument in United States v. Callahan, 801 F.3d 606(6th Cir. 2015). This court finds the Callahan
4

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 29 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 7
opinion's reasoning and conclusion persuasive. There is no ambiguity in section 1589, and this court will not read congressional findings into the statute. See Callahan, 801 F.3d at 617-18.
CoreCivic next argues that the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim under the TVPA. Taking the factual allegations as true, the complaint alleges that CoreCivic had a policy
of forcing detainees to perform labor or services and if the detainees refused then they would be subject to solitary confinement, denial of benefits and services, and physical threats. Courts have long recognized that "solitary confinement bears 'a further terror and peculiar mark of infamy.'" Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187,2209 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (quoting In re Medley, 134
U.S. 160, 170(1890). Solitary confinement alone constitutes serious harm, which Congress defined to include psychological harm. See 18 U.S.C. § 1 589(c)(2). Thus, the court finds that solitary
confinement, or the threat of solitary confinement, sufficiently alleges the means to achieve forced
labor, and the court therefore concludes that Gonzalez has sufficiently stated a claim for a TVPA violation sufficient to overcome the motion to dismiss.
CoreCivic next argues that Gonzalez cannot assert a private cause of action prior to Congress's 2008 TVPA amendment. CoreCivic contends that Congress did not give the amendment retroactive effect and, therefore, any liability under the "financial benefit" prong of section 1595 can only attach to conduct after the effective date of the amendment, December 23, 2008. Therefore, CoreCivic argues, Gonzalez's claims before December 23, 2008 must fail. The Fourth Circuit
addressed this issue in Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014). Before the 2008 amendment,
CoreCivic was not liable because the "financial benefit" element cause of action did not exist. After
the amendment, however, CoreCivic could be found liable. Because CoreCivic can be found liable only after the amendment, the 2008 amendment shall not apply retroactively barring Congress's clear

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 29 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 7
intent to do so. The court's review of the amendment reveals no clear intent to apply retroactively. See Cruz, 773 F.3d at 144. Therefore, the court concludes that Gonzalez may only bring claims under the "financial benefit" prong for violations ofthe TVPA after the 2008 amendment's effective
date. Finally, CoreCivic argues that Gonzalez's derivative claims for negligence and unjust
enrichment should be dismissed because her claim under the TVPA is not viable. Having determined that Gonzalez's claim under the TVPA survives the motion to dismiss, the court concludes that the derivative claims also survive at this time. As to CoreCivic' s additional argument that Gonzalez's unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed because other equitable relief exists through Gonzalez's other claims, the court disagrees. Gonzalez has allege that CoreCivic coerced detainees to provide labor to CoreCivic, that CoreCivic benefitted from that labor, and that allowing CoreCivic to keep that benefit would be unjust. The court does not find at this time that Texas would not recognize an unjust enrichment claim under these circumstances. See Excess
Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc., 246 S.W. 3d 42, 49 (Tex.
2008); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. 165 S.W.3d 732, 740 (Tex. 2005) (holding quantum meruit
to be equitable theory of recovery intended to prevent unjust enrichment when there is implied agreement to pay for benefits received). Therefore, the court will deny CoreCivic's motion to dismiss Gonzalez's negligence unjust enrichment claims.

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 29 Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 7

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Corecivic's Motion to Dismiss filed June

8, 2018 (Doe. #18) is DENIED.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to submit to the court a Proposed Agreed

Scheduling Order, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), that follows the form scheduling order of this court located on the website for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (www.txwd.uscourts.gov), the "Forms" tab, "Civil," "Austin Division,"

"Proposed Scheduling Order for Judge Yeakel," on or before March 22, 2019.

SIGNED this

day of March, 2019.

ITED STA ES D STRICT JUDGE

The court's conclusion that Gonzalez has plausibly stated allegations to overcome CoreCivic's motion to dismiss does not guarantee that Gonzalez's claims will ultimately prevail. Gonzalez bears the heavy burden ofproducing evidence that supportsthe reasonable conclusion that CoreCivic threatened Gonzalez with a serious risk of harm if she did not persist as a laborer.
7

 
 Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 42 Filed 06/10/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

2UI9JUN LU PM 5:03

MARTHA GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY §

AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS §

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

§

PLAINTIFF,

§

§

V.

§

§

CORECIVIC, INC.,

§

DEFENDANT.

§

t , I
CAUSE NO. 1:18-CV-169-LY

[I) 1 0

Before the court are Defendant CoreCivic, Inc.'s Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal

Pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1292(b) filed March 11, 2019 (Doc. #30); Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal filed April 8, 2019 (Doc. #38); and Reply in Support of Motion to

Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed April 15, 2019 (Doe. #40). Also before the court are CoreCivic' s Motion to Stay all Proceedings filed April 2,2019

(Doe. #37); Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Stay All Proceedings filed April 9,2019 (Doe. #39);

and CoreCivic's Reply in Support of Motion to Stay All Proceedings filed April 15, 2019

(Doe. #41).

On March 1,2019, this court rendered an order denying Defendant CoreCivic, Inc.'s motion

to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff Martha Gonzalez stated a claim for a violation of the Trafficking

Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") as it applies to labor performed by immigration detainees in lawful

custody sufficient to overcome the CoreCivic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss (Doe. #29). CoreCivic, Inc.

now requests the court to certify its March 1,2019 order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to Section

1292(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code on the following issue: "Whether the TVPA applies

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 42 Filed 06/10/19 Page 2 of 3
to work programs in federal immigration detention facilities." CoreCivic, Inc.'s also seeks a stay of all proceedings before this court pending resolution of the appeal.
Although Gonzalez opposes the motions to certify interlocutory appeal and to stay all proceedings before this court, the parties acknowledge that a case is now pending before the Eleventh Circuit on interlocutory appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia agaisnt the same Defendant, CoreCivic, Inc., and a similar class-action complaint involving current and former immigration detainees at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia. As in this case, the district court in Georgia denied CoreCivic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss,
and the district court sua sponte certified the issue of whether the TVPA applies to work programs
in federal immigration-detention facilities operated by private, for-profit contractors to the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit granted CoreCivic, Inc.'s petition for permission to appeal, and the case remains pending before the Eleventh Circuit. See Ahmed v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 18-15081 -GG.
"A district court may certify an interlocutory appeal from an order if the court is 'of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Nguyen v. Am. Commercial Lines L.L.C., 805 F.3d 134, 137-38 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (West 2018)). The court finds the logic of the Georgia district court compelling that a final decision on the controlling question of law regarding the applicability of the TVPA to work programs in federal immigration-detention facilities may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation before the district court and therefore
any delay at the district court is a small price to pay before continuing with fact discovery and classcertification proceedings. Therefore,
2

Case 1:18-cv-00169-LY Document 42 Filed 06/10/19 Page 3 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant CoreCivic, Inc.'s Motion to Certify for Interlocutory

Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed March 11, 2019 (Doc. #30) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CoreCivic's Motion to Stay all Proceedings filed April

2, 2019 (Doc. #37) is GRANTED. All proceedings in this court are STAYED pending resolution

of any application for interlocutory appeal in this cause.

SIGNED this

day of June, 2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3