PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-1204 _____________ BRIAN A. DAVIS; FREDERICKA K. BECKFORD, Appellants v. CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS ADMINISTRATOR, Bureau of Prisons Privatization Management Branch; G. C. WIGEN, Former Warden, Moshannon Valley Correctional Center; S. M. KUTA, Current Warden, Moshannon Valley Correctional Center; THE GEO GROUP, INC.; DAVID O'NEAL, Northeast Regional Director, Department of Homeland Security _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 3-16-cv-00026) District Judge: Hon. Kim R. Gibson _______________ Argued March 24, 2020 Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: June 11, 2020) _______________ Stephen A. Fogdall [ARGUED] Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis 1600 Market Street – Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellants Scott W. Brady Laura S. Irwin [ARGUED] Thomas M. Pohl Office of United States Attorney 700 Grant Street – Ste.4000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Appellees, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Administrator Federal Bureau of Prisons, David O’Neal Thomas A. Specht [ARGUED] Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin P.O. Box 3118 Scranton, PA 18505 Counsel for Appellees, George C. Wigen, Sean M. Kuta, Geo Group Inc. 2 OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ JORDAN, Circuit Judge. While confined at the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center (“MVCC”), a private prison operated by The GEO Group, Inc. under contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Brian Davis was denied permission to marry his fiancée, Fredricka Beckford. The warden of MVCC at the time was George C. Wigen (together with GEO Group, the “GEO Defendants”), and he is the one who allegedly said no. In response, Davis and Beckford (the “Appellants”) brought suit against the GEO Defendants and two federal officials, David O’Neal, the Northeast Regional Director for the Department of Homeland Security, and someone identified only by the title Federal Bureau of Prisons Administrator of the Bureau of Prisons Privatization Management Branch (the “BOP Administrator,” and, together with O’Neal, the “Federal Defendants”). The Appellants assert various state and federal law claims against the GEO Defendants and the Federal Defendants, the gravamen of which is that the Appellants were denied the right to marry because of unlawful discrimination. On consideration of a motion to dismiss by the GEO Defendants, a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) calling for the Appellants’ claims against the GEO Defendants to be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The R&R also recommended, sua sponte, that the Appellants’ claims against the Federal Defendants be dismissed because those defendants had yet to receive service of process. The District Court adopted the R&R in its entirety and, without further analysis, dismissed the Appellants’ 3 lawsuit. The Appellants now argue that none of their claims were properly dismissed. We agree that certain claims against the GEO Defendants were wrongly dismissed and so too were the claims against the Federal Defendants. Accordingly, we will affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand the matter to the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals