Adkins v. Corrections Corp. of America, 681 F. App'x 579

Background

Twenty-one Hawaii inmates formerly housed at CCA’s Saguaro Correctional Center sued CCA, the State of Hawaii (SOH), eleven CCA corrections officers, and one SOH officer over alleged beatings during an inmate disturbance on July 26, 2010.
Plaintiffs asserted federal § 1983 claims (including a conspiracy claim), Arizona state-law assault/battery, vicarious liability, negligence, and conspiracy claims arising from those beatings.
At trial the district court granted multiple Rule 50(a) motions for judgment as a matter of law dismissing many individual-defendant § 1983 and Arizona assault/battery claims where no direct participation was shown; the jury later returned verdicts for many defendants on the remaining counts.
The district court also denied Plaintiffs’ late motions to amend the complaint (to add negligence and state-law conspiracy claims) and to conform pleadings to the evidence, and granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ federal conspiracy claim based on pleading/JCMP errors.
Plaintiffs challenged several jury instructions and sought post-verdict juror interviews; the district court denied these requests. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in all respects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether individual Defendants can be liable under § 1983 absent proof they directly participated in a particular beating	Plaintiffs argued individuals were liable under an "integral participant" or presence/concert theories based on collective testimony	Defendants argued mere presence or generalized conduct is insufficient; liability requires personal participation or proof of concerted agreement	Affirmed: § 1983 liability requires personal participation; insufficient evidence for integral-participant liability where defendant not identified as direct participant
Whether Arizona assault/battery claims can proceed under joint-and-several liability absent proof of a conscious agreement to act in concert	Plaintiffs argued acting-in-concert or joint liability applied from collective evidence	Defendants argued A.R.S. requires proof of a conscious agreement; plaintiffs produced no such evidence	Affirmed: Arizona law requires conscious agreement; claims dismissed where no direct-participant identification or agreement evidence
Whether leave to amend pleadings or conform to evidence should be allowed late (to add negligence/conspiracy)	Plaintiffs sought leave to add negligence and conspiracy claims after discovery and near trial, claiming sufficient notice or that evidence supported amendment	Defendants argued delay would prejudice them and require additional discovery; district court warned complaint lacked claims earlier	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in denying amendment or motion to conform due to delay and prejudice
Whether Plaintiffs’ federal conspiracy claim survives summary judgment given their JCMP/pleading error (1985 vs 1983)	Plaintiffs said typo (1985 vs 1983) should not bar a § 1983 conspiracy claim	Defendants relied on Plaintiffs’ JCMP and briefing that invoked § 1985 elements; argued Plaintiffs never corrected the error	Affirmed: summary judgment proper because Plaintiffs repeatedly treated claim as § 1985 and failed to correct the mistake
Whether challenged jury instructions and post-verdict juror inquiry rulings were erroneous	Plaintiffs argued missing "integral participation" / "acting in concert" instructions and other instruction formulations were legally erroneous; sought juror interviews to probe deliberation improprieties	Defendants argued instructions were supported by the evidence and law; no evidence of juror misconduct justified juror interrogation	Affirmed: instructions proper or moot given lack of supporting evidence; juror interview request denied absent evidence of misconduct

Key Cases Cited

LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000) (standards for Rule 50 review)
Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (personal participation required for § 1983 liability)
Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) (integral participant theory defined)
Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (jury instruction standards)
Smith v. Cupp, 457 F.2d 1098 (9th Cir. 1972) (limitations on juror interrogation absent misconduct)
United States v. Wright, 506 F.3d 1293 (10th Cir. 2007) (trial court discretion to deny juror inquiry absent external interference)
Greenwood v. F.A.A., 28 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1994) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)
Madeja v. Olympic Packers, LLC, 310 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (motions to conform pleadings to evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Or. Teamster Emp’rs Trust v. Hillsboro Garbage Disposal, Inc., 800 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2015) (denial of leave to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1990) (prejudice and delay justify denial of leave to amend)
Wiper v. Downtown Dev. Corp. of Tucson, 732 P.2d 200 (Ariz. 1987) (vicarious liability under Arizona law requires an underlying employee tort)