Cortez v. Martin et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:22-cv-00051-MSM-PAS Document 44 _ Filed 02/13/24 Page 1 of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

)
ADRIANO ALAIN CORTEZ )
Plaintiff, )
)
Vv. ) No. 1:22-CV-00051-MSM-PAS
)
DANIEL MARTIN, et al, )
Defendants )
)
)
ORDER

Mary 8S. McElroy, United States District Judge.

By previous Order, entered on March 10, 2023, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, leaving pending only the plaintiffs
complaint that the defendants acted unconstitutionally in opening legal mail in his
absence. (ECF No. 24.) After that Order was entered, the defendants filed a second,
amended Motion to Dismiss, alleging that Mr. Cortez cannot invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983
because he is in the custody of federal officials at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention
Center Facility and the conduct of officials there is thus not “state action.” The Court
then appointed an attorney to represent Mr. Cortez.

The Wyatt facility is under the jurisdiction of the Central Falls Detention
Facility Corporation, its owner and operator. Avcorr Management, LLC v. Central

Falls Detention Facility Corporation, 41 A.3d 1007, 1008 (R.I. 2012). It was

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
authorized by state statute to enter into a contract with the United States marshal’s
service. 	R.I.G.L. (1956) § 45-54-1. 	Whether the conduct of Wyatt correctional
employees is state action or not has been answered in inconsistent ways by two earlier
decisions of this Court.
Compare Glennie v. Garland, No. C.A. 21-341JJM, 2023 WL
2265247, at *16 (D.R.I. Feb. 28, 2023) (not state action)
with Lacedra v. Donald W.
Wyatt Det. Facility, 334 F. Supp. 141, 140-41 (D.R.I. 2004) (state action).
The Court finds that the resolution of this issue depends in some measure on
facts which cannot be determined on the record as it currently exists. 	No contract
with federal officials is in evidence. 	The record does not reveal the extent to which
operations are controlled by the Central Falls corporation, by the Central Falls City
Council, or the relationship between the facility’s Board of Directors (which is
appointed 	by 	the 	Mayor,
	see 	http://www.wyattdetention.com/About-
Us/Administration/Board-of-Directors) 	and 	the 	governing 	authorities 	at 	the
institution. 	It also does not reveal anything about the employment status of the
correctional officers and administration at Wyatt: are they federal employees or state
employees and to whom are they accountable?
The Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
___________________________________
Mary S. McElroy,
United States District Judge
Date: February 13, 2024
Case 1:22-cv-00051-MSM-PAS Document 44 Filed 02/13/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Case 1:22-cv-00051-MSM-PAS Document 44 _ Filed 02/13/24 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #:
<pagelD>