Dillon v. Correction Corporation of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * ROBERT J. DILLON, Case No. 2:20-cv-02319-APG-NJK Plaintiff, ORDER v. CORRECTION CORP OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

10 This is a civil rights action that was initiated by plaintiff Robert J. Dillon, a federal pretrial detainee housed at the Nevada Southern Detention Center. ECF No. 1-1 at 1-2. Dillon has paid the full filing fee. ECF No. 5. Dillon sues the Nevada Southern Detention Center and Correction Corporation of America, which has a contract to operate a detention center for the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. He also sues the Chief Executive Officer of CoreCivic Inc., Damon T. Hininger, and the following employees for the Nevada Southern Detention Center: Assistant Warden Mrs. Lauer, Dr. David Rivas, Bonnie Holley, Rebecca Smith, Mr. Sapp, and Mr. Kutz. I will not screen this case because screening is not authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner, including a pretrial detainee, brings an action seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Although Dillon initiated this action as a pretrial detainee, he is not suing a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. He is suing a private corporation, a private chief executive officer, a 1}| private prison, and the private prison’s employees. These defendants are private entities or employees of private entities. Under these circumstances, a screening order is not authorized by 1915A(a). See Perotti v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 3:08-CV-0132-RRB, 2008 WL 11429340, at (D. Alaska Aug. 1, 2008) (recognizing that the screening requirement of § 1915A(a) does not apply where the defendant was a private prison because privately-operated prisons are not 6]| governmental entities).

7 Nor does the screening provision of § 1915(e)(2) apply to this case. Under that statute, 8|| the court is authorized to screen a case when the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that 10]| 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners’).

11|| However, Dillon has paid the full filing fee and is not attempting to proceed in forma pauperis.

12 Accordingly, I do not have authorization to screen this complaint. This case will proceed 13]/ on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

14 I THEREFORE ORDER that the Court will not issue a screening order in this case.

15 I FURTHER ORDER that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided 16]| by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17 DATED THIS 5thday of February 2021.

18 OIA 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE