Source: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2005/jun/15/immigration-detainee-wins-appointed-counsel-and-new-trial-in-brutality-suit-against-cca/
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 14:51:29
Document Index: 788228645

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 60', '§ 1915', '§ 1346', '§ 1983', '§ 1346', '§ 1367', '§ 6']

Immigration Detainee Wins Appointed Counsel And New Trial In Brutality Suit Against CCA | Prison Legal News
An immigration detainee of seven years, who had unsuccessfully sued his jailer, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and its employees for severely beating him during a medical emergency transport, was granted a new trial with appointed counsel. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the complexity of the case should have alerted the district court to grant the detainee's original motion for appointment of counsel, the lack of which reduced his chances of prevailing to virtually nil.
Emmanuel Agyeman, a native of Ghana deemed an illegal alien by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), had been detained" since February 4, 1997. He was found deportable on July 28, 1997, but the ruling was overturned on July 23, 2002, (Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002)) and remanded for a full and fair hearing. Meanwhile, part of his unending federal detention was spent in facilities operated by private contractor CCA, where he claimed he was mistreated.
Agyeman complained that on October 11, 1998, while he was a pre-trial detainee at CCA's Central Arizona Detention Center, he was beaten by shift supervisor Captain Lopez, by Lt. Egber and by a Sgt. John Doe." Agyeman had been in full mechanical restraints preparatory for his emergency medical transport to Casa Grande Medical Center for treatment of what the Prison Medical Unit had diagnosed as cardiac arrest." Agyeman, barely conscious, apparently didn't move fast enough to satisfy his CCA jailers, who then proceeded to beat him severely. Agyeman suffered three broken teeth, loss of blood and numerous bruises - in addition to obvious pain and suffering from being locked in a cell thereafter for twelve hours, fastened to a bed in an unnatural position calculated to inflict torture.
He filed a lawsuit against CCA and its employees in June 1999. On October 5, 1999 the U.S. District Court granted him in forma pauperis status (IFP) but declared his complaint deficient in a screening order. Agyeman responded on November 5, 1999 with his first amended complaint. The case bounced back and forth, continually being trimmed back by a magistrate judge. Significant for the present case, the magistrate denied Agyeman's motion to appoint counsel because he was not experiencing difficulty... [traceable to] the complexity of the issues involved." Moreover, because the case was beyond the pleading stage, no constitutional right to counsel was at stake.
On May 3, 2003, after a 3 ½ day jury trial, Agyeman lost, and his motions for a new trial, relief under F.R.Civ.P. § 60(b )(3) and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied. He appealed, but the district court certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith and revoked Agyeman's IFP status.
The Ninth Circuit, however, ruled contrary and also appointed pro bono counsel for him. The question before the Ninth Circuit was, When does appointment of counsel become necessary due to the complexity of the case." (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).) Precedent held that such appointment is reserved for exceptional circumstances.
Analyzing Agyeman's case, the Ninth Circuit found a triple complexity." First, to the extent he sued the corporation CCA, the case could not be brought as a Bivens (403 U.S. 388) action because Bivens does not lie for private corporate defendants (citing Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2000)). Rather, Agyeman should have sued CCA under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680.
Alternatively, per Malesko, he could have sued in tort seeking injunctive relief.
Second, as to suing CCA employees, Agyeman was required to bring a Bivens action. And third, Agyeman's status as a detainee (non-criminal charges) gave him an enhanced status, bringing into question whether BOP rules governing transport of prisoners were even applicable to him.
Agyeman did the best he could, but inappropriately used 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his action - a statute reserved for suing state employees. The Ninth Circuit reviewed all the places where an alert attorney would have properly steered the progressing actions, and concluded that Agyeman failed not for a bad try, but because the complexities of the case were so overwhelming as to be predictably fatal to its outcome, absent professional help. In short, they were exceptional.
The Ninth Circuit also expressed its disdain for a legal system that detained" a person on non-criminal charges for seven years, and subjected him to treatment like a dangerous criminal. Is there any warrant for shackling the feet and binding the chest of innocent detainee," the court asked? To which this writer adds, Is there any warrant to pummel a shackled prisoner suffering cardiac arrest and torture him for twelve hours," regardless of his incarceration status?
The Ninth Circuit accordingly vacated the judgment below and remanded for relitigation by appointed counsel. See: Agyeman v. Corrections Corporation of America, 390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004).
Agyeman v. Corrections Corporation of America
390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004).
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Zurich Insurance Company; Gerber,
Assistant Shift Supervisor; Valadez, Unit Manager; D. Rivas, Assistant
Warden; Laurence, Chief of Security; H. Mohn, Disciplinary Hearing Officer;
John Gluch, Warden; Samberg, Warden; Sarah Cannon, Internal Controls
Officer; Lopez, Shift Supervisor; Calderon, Defendants-Appellees.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 1, 2004.
Background: Pretrial detainee brought Bivens action against private corporation the operated correctional facility for United States and that corporation's employees. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Paul G. Rosenblatt, J., declined to appoint counsel for detainee and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Detainee appealed.
Holding: The Court of Appeals, Noonan, Circuit Judge, held that complexity of action was exceptional circumstance that warranted appointment of
*1102 Ilana Rubel and Anjali Kumar, San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Earlier, on November 13, 2000, the magistrate judge had denied without prejudice Agyeman's motion to appoint counsel. The magistrate judge stated: "Plaintiff has failed to show that any difficulty he is experiencing in attempting to litigate this case is derived from the complexity of the issues involved." No constitutional right *1103 to counsel was at stake, the magistrate judge ruled, because the "case is beyond the pleading stage."
Agyeman's case brought against Corrections Corporation and its employees, had a triple complexity. First, to the extent that Agyeman sought to hold Corrections Corporation itself liable, the case could not be brought under Bivens, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619, since Corrections Corporation is a private corporation. See Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001) (declining to apply Bivens to private corporations). Rather, Agyeman could have brought a suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § § 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680; United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 83 S.Ct. 1850, 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1963). Alternatively, he could have sued the corporation directly in tort and he could have sought injunctive relief. See Malesko, 534 U.S. at 72-74, 122 S.Ct. 515 (discussing alternative options for federal prisoners in private prisons). Agyeman would have had the option of bringing this suit against Corrections Corporation by joining the latter as a defendant *1104 in the suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act and requesting the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see Lester S. Jason & Robert C. Longstreth, Handling Federal Tort Claims § § 6.02-.03 (2004).
Because Agyeman was denied counsel, the judgment in his case must be VACATED. The case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion, including *1105 the appointment of counsel by the district court.