Arevalo v. M.T.C. et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing all Defendants except GEO Group, Inc. without prejudice, denying Plaintiff's Motion to add MDOC as a Defendant, and Dismissing Plaintiff's habeas claims without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 10/4/2013 (HM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM AREVALO, # 145950
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13cv83-HSO-RHW

MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING
CORPORATION, GEO GROUP, INC.,
DORIS MCDONALD, EDDIE CATES,
WARDEN B. GRIMES, WARDEN V.
HORTON, FIRE INSPECTOR TIM
WILSON, WARDEN RICE, WARDEN
SHAW, WARDEN OVALLE, CASE
MANAGER T. KELLEY, CASE
MANAGER T. CROSBY, CASE
MANAGER K. HADLEY, OFFICER R.
JACKSON, CASE MANAGER D.
SMITH, and WARDEN J. GRAHAM

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ALL DEFENDANTS
EXCEPT GEO GROUP, INC. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADD MDOC AS A DEFENDANT, AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S HABEAS CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Pro se Plaintiff William Arevalo
is incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). He has
filed this suit against various prison officials and GEO Group, Inc., a private
corrections, detention, and mental health treatment provider. The Court has
considered and liberally construed the pleadings. For the reasons set forth below,
all Defendants excluding GEO are dismissed without prejudice, and Arevalo’s
habeas claims are dismissed without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2009, Arevalo was convicted in Harrison County, Mississippi,

of aggravated assault and escaping prison. In February 2010, while imprisoned,
Arevalo was convicted in Sunflower County, Mississippi, of criminal damage to
state property. In February 2011, while imprisoned, Arevalo was convicted in
Lauderdale County, Mississippi, of possession of contraband.
On April 25, 2013, Arevalo initiated this action against Defendants
Management and Training Corporation, GEO, Doris McDonald, Eddie Cates,
Wardens B. Grimes and V. Horton, Fire Inspector Tim Wilson, Wardens Rice, Shaw,
and Ovalle, Case Managers T. Kelley, T. Crosby, and K. Hadley, Officer R. Jackson,
Case Manager D. Smith, and Warden J. Graham. Arevalo complains about various
conditions of his confinement. He alleges excessive force, denial of medical
treatment, unsanitary and inhumane housing conditions, and racial discrimination.
Arevalo contends that he is being unjustifiably held in long-term segregation
because of numerous allegedly wrongful Rule Violation Reports issued against him
by prison officials. He also appears to challenge his 2010 and 2011 convictions.
Arevalo seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and speedier release.
In response to the Court’s inquiries into his claims, Arevalo has indicated
that he would like to streamline this case by adding MDOC as a Defendant and
dismissing all current Defendants with the exception of GEO.
II. DISCUSSION
A.

All Defendants Excluding GEO Should be Dismissed Without Prejudice
Arevalo requests voluntary dismissal of all Defendants except GEO. The

Court finds that Arevalo’s request should be granted, and all Defendants excluding
2

GEO should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41.
B.

MDOC Should Not Be Added as a Defendant
Arevalo requests that MDOC be added as a Defendant. No responsive

pleadings have been filed, and as a procedural matter, Plaintiff may amend his
Complaint “as a matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Nevertheless,
because this amendment would be futile and would unnecessarily delay the
resolution of this case, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request. Avatar Exploration, Inc.
v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 321 (5th Cir. 1991)(district court may deny
motion to amend when amendment would be futile).
42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . .
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To the extent that Arevalo requests relief against MDOC pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, MDOC is not amenable to suit. MDOC is not a “person” within the
meaning of § 1983. It is considered an “arm of the state” and is entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity. Scott v. Miss. Dep’t of Corrs., No. 2:05cv2159-KS-JMR,
2006 WL 1666258, *2 (S.D. Miss. June 12, 2006); see Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-1; Will
v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). To the extent that Arevalo
3

requests relief against MDOC pursuant to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Miss.
Code Ann. sections 11-46-1 et seq., the Act does not waive the State’s Eleventh
Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-5(4).
Accordingly, Arevalo’s request to add MDOC as a Defendant should be denied as
futile.
C.

Arevalo’s Habeas Claims Should be Dismissed Without Prejudice
Arevalo appears to challenge his 2010 conviction in Sunflower County for

criminal damage to state property and his 2011 conviction in Lauderdale County for
possession of contraband. He seeks speedier release from incarceration. The Court
liberally construes Arevalo’s Complaint in this regard as requesting habeas relief
pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
“A petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of more than one state court
must file a separate petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court.” R.
Governing § 2254 Cases 2(e). Furthermore, before Arevalo can pursue his habeas
claims in this Court, he must exhaust his available state remedies, 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1)(A), and provide “the State the ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct’
alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29
(2004) (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995)). In order to exhaust his
habeas claims, Arevalo is required to seek relief from the highest court of the State.
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 840 (1999). Arevalo has not shown that he has
exhausted his habeas claims, and the Court declines to sever these claims. Rather,
Arevalo’s habeas claims will be dismissed without prejudice.
4

III. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all Defendants
with the exception of GEO Group, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff William
Arevalo’s request to add the Mississippi Department of Corrections as a Defendant
is DENIED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff William
Arevalo’s habeas claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 4th day of October, 2013.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5