×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
PLRA Applies to Private Prisons
Upholding a Tennessee federal district court, the U.S. Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as meritless and frivolous a Wisconsin
prisoner's suit against the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).
Jerald Treat, a Wisconsin prisoner incarcerated at the CCA-owned and
operated Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCF) in Tennessee, sued CCA,
several private prison businesses and numerous prison employees under 42
U.S.C. §1983, charging them with numerous violations of his civil rights
and state tort law, and with racketeering. The district court granted
Treat in forma pauperis status, dismissed the suit as frivolous, and ruled
that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.
Treat appealed arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did
not apply to private prisons and that his suit was not frivolous. The
Sixth Circuit disagreed.
The appeals court characterized Treat's complaint as a diatribe against
privately operated prisons in general and CCA specifically. The court held
that the PLRA applies to private prisons because "when a state entity
contracts with a private prison corporation to house inmates, the private
corporation is performing a function traditionally attributable to the
state and may be treated as acting for the state under color of law."
Treat's claim was, therefore, "patently meritless."
Reviewing the merits of the complaint de novo, the appeals court
held that the entire complaint was frivolous. The district court's
dismissal was affirmed. This case is published in the Federal Appendix and
is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See: Treat v.
Corrections Corporation of America, 16 Fed.Appx. 310 (6th Cir. 2001).
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as meritless and frivolous a Wisconsin
prisoner's suit against the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).
Jerald Treat, a Wisconsin prisoner incarcerated at the CCA-owned and
operated Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCF) in Tennessee, sued CCA,
several private prison businesses and numerous prison employees under 42
U.S.C. §1983, charging them with numerous violations of his civil rights
and state tort law, and with racketeering. The district court granted
Treat in forma pauperis status, dismissed the suit as frivolous, and ruled
that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.
Treat appealed arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did
not apply to private prisons and that his suit was not frivolous. The
Sixth Circuit disagreed.
The appeals court characterized Treat's complaint as a diatribe against
privately operated prisons in general and CCA specifically. The court held
that the PLRA applies to private prisons because "when a state entity
contracts with a private prison corporation to house inmates, the private
corporation is performing a function traditionally attributable to the
state and may be treated as acting for the state under color of law."
Treat's claim was, therefore, "patently meritless."
Reviewing the merits of the complaint de novo, the appeals court
held that the entire complaint was frivolous. The district court's
dismissal was affirmed. This case is published in the Federal Appendix and
is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See: Treat v.
Corrections Corporation of America, 16 Fed.Appx. 310 (6th Cir. 2001).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Treat v. Corrections Corporation of America
| Year | 2001 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 16 Fed.Appx. 310 (6th Cir. 2001). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
JERALD TREAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-6000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
16 Fed. Appx. 310; 2001 U.S. App.
June 18, 2001, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
PRIOR HISTORY: Western District of Tennessee. 00-01160. Todd. 06-27-00.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: JERALD TREAT, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Whiteville, TN.
JUDGES: Before: MARTIN, Chief Judge; NELSON, Circuit Judge; RICE, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Walter Herbert Rice, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
OPINION: [*310]
ORDER
Pro se Wisconsin prisoner Jerald Treat appeals a district court judgment that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. The case has been referred to this panel pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
[*311] Treat filed a 54-page complaint against the Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA"), other related private-prison businesses, several John Doe defendants, and [**2] multiple employees of CCA. Treat, who is incarcerated at the Whiteville Correctional Facility, claimed that the defendants violated his civil rights and state tort law and engaged in racketeering. Essentially, his complaint is a diatribe against privately-operated prisons in general and CCA specifically.
The district court granted Treat leave to proceed as a pauper, denied class certification, dismissed Treat's suit as frivolous, and certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.
In his timely appeal, Treat argues that the district court: (1) improperly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") to his suit because Whiteville is a privately-operated prison, and (2) that the court erred by dismissing his suit as frivolous.
As an initial matter, we note that Treat's first enumerated issue is patently meritless. The PLRA applies to privately-operated prisons. See, e.g., Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 865-66 (6th Cir. 2000) (applying the PLRA to suit against a CCA-operated prison); Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.) (stating that Wisconsin prisoners housed in private prisons in other states were required to comply [**3] with the PLRA when filing § 1983 suits), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 954, 120 S. Ct. 380 (1999); Skelton v. Pri-Cor, Inc., 963 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that when a state entity contracts with a private corporation to house inmates, the private corporation is performing a function traditionally attributable to the state and may be treated as acting for the state under color of law).
We review de novo a judgment dismissing a suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). A sua sponte dismissal of a complaint is appropriate where the complaint is frivolous on its face. See McGore, 114 F.3d at 609.
Upon a thorough review of the pleadings, the district court's order of dismissal, and Treat's brief, we affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons stated by that court in its June 19, 2000, order of dismissal. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules [**4] of the Sixth Circuit.
No. 00-6000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
16 Fed. Appx. 310; 2001 U.S. App.
June 18, 2001, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
PRIOR HISTORY: Western District of Tennessee. 00-01160. Todd. 06-27-00.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: JERALD TREAT, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Whiteville, TN.
JUDGES: Before: MARTIN, Chief Judge; NELSON, Circuit Judge; RICE, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Walter Herbert Rice, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
OPINION: [*310]
ORDER
Pro se Wisconsin prisoner Jerald Treat appeals a district court judgment that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. The case has been referred to this panel pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
[*311] Treat filed a 54-page complaint against the Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA"), other related private-prison businesses, several John Doe defendants, and [**2] multiple employees of CCA. Treat, who is incarcerated at the Whiteville Correctional Facility, claimed that the defendants violated his civil rights and state tort law and engaged in racketeering. Essentially, his complaint is a diatribe against privately-operated prisons in general and CCA specifically.
The district court granted Treat leave to proceed as a pauper, denied class certification, dismissed Treat's suit as frivolous, and certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.
In his timely appeal, Treat argues that the district court: (1) improperly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") to his suit because Whiteville is a privately-operated prison, and (2) that the court erred by dismissing his suit as frivolous.
As an initial matter, we note that Treat's first enumerated issue is patently meritless. The PLRA applies to privately-operated prisons. See, e.g., Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 865-66 (6th Cir. 2000) (applying the PLRA to suit against a CCA-operated prison); Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.) (stating that Wisconsin prisoners housed in private prisons in other states were required to comply [**3] with the PLRA when filing § 1983 suits), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 954, 120 S. Ct. 380 (1999); Skelton v. Pri-Cor, Inc., 963 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that when a state entity contracts with a private corporation to house inmates, the private corporation is performing a function traditionally attributable to the state and may be treated as acting for the state under color of law).
We review de novo a judgment dismissing a suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). A sua sponte dismissal of a complaint is appropriate where the complaint is frivolous on its face. See McGore, 114 F.3d at 609.
Upon a thorough review of the pleadings, the district court's order of dismissal, and Treat's brief, we affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons stated by that court in its June 19, 2000, order of dismissal. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules [**4] of the Sixth Circuit.