Coffey v. Core Civic America
2:20-cv-01899
| D. Ariz. | Dec 4, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Dylan Shane Coffey, a pro se incarcerated person at Red Rock Correctional Center, filed a civil rights-style claim alleging defamation and related constitutional violations after a disciplinary charge for possession of drugs appeared on ADC’s website.
- Court granted Coffey in forma pauperis but dismissed his original complaint for not using the court-approved form; Coffey filed a First Amended Complaint naming Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), CoreCivic, and Assistant Deputy Warden/Contract Monitor J. Garrison.
- Coffey alleged loss of visitation (later restored), emotional distress, reputational harm, and that ADC/CoreCivic/Garrison published a false “guilty” charge online without his consent.
- Court screened the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found pleading defects: ADC is immune or not a § 1983 “person,” CoreCivic lacked allegations of an unconstitutional policy or custom, and Garrison lacked allegations of personal involvement in publishing the information.
- Court explained defamation‑under‑§1983 requires “defamation‑plus” (an injury connected to a federal right) and noted truth is a defense to defamation; Coffey did not meet those standards.
- Result: First Amended Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim, but Coffey was given 30 days and a court-approved form to file a second amended complaint; warnings about strikes, release, and address changes were provided.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Properness of ADC as defendant | ADC published false charge on its website causing reputational harm and constitutional violations | ADC is an arm of the State and immune under the Eleventh Amendment and is not a “person” under § 1983 | ADC dismissed: state immunity/§1983 personhood bars suit against ADC |
| CoreCivic § 1983 liability | CoreCivic failed to follow ADC protocol and negligently inspected/allowed the cell that generated the charge | CoreCivic has no municipal‑type liability absent a policy, custom, or decision causing the violation | CoreCivic dismissed without prejudice for lack of allegations showing a policy/custom causing constitutional violation |
| Garrison personal liability and defamation claim under § 1983 | Garrison should have prevented online publication of the “guilty charge” and is responsible for reputational injury | Garrison had no alleged role in placing or removing the online information; supervisory status alone insufficient; defamation requires more under § 1983 and truth is a defense | Garrison dismissed without prejudice for no personal involvement alleged and failure to satisfy defamation‑plus or falsity requirements |
| Pleading sufficiency and leave to amend | Complaint states harm and constitutional violations from online publication | Complaint is conclusory, fails Twombly/Iqbal plausibility, and omits required facts (who did what, policy links, falsity) | Complaint fails to state a claim but plaintiff given leave to amend on court form within 30 days; failure to comply risks dismissal/strike |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (states/arms of the state immune from suit absent consent)
- Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (state agencies are not § 1983 “persons”)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (private entities or municipalities liable under § 1983 only for unconstitutional policy/custom)
- Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2012) (private entities performing public functions require policy/custom allegations for § 1983 liability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) (individual § 1983 liability requires personal involvement)
- Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Nash‑Holmes, 169 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 1999) (defamation‑plus test for recovery under § 1983)
- Fleming v. Department of Public Safety, 837 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1988) (damage to reputation is typically a state tort, not a § 1983 claim)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed)