Doe v. North Homes, Inc.

Background

North Homes, Inc., Connie Ross, and the John Doe defendants had previously moved to dismiss Jane Doe’s complaint. The court’s August 9, 2019 order granted that motion, dismissed Doe’s complaint without prejudice, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims, and granted her motion for a protective order.

The earlier dismissal concluded that Doe had not alleged enough facts to plausibly show that North Homes was a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court explained that state regulation alone does not turn a private organization into a state actor and that Doe had not sufficiently alleged that the state delegated public functions to North Homes or jointly performed those functions with North Homes.

Doe’s Motion

Doe asked for permission to file an amended complaint containing additional allegations intended to support her § 1983 claims. In the alternative, she asked the court to alter, amend, or grant relief from the earlier judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). Doe argued that the court had made a manifest error of law by failing to apply the public-function test. That test asks whether a private entity performed a function traditionally reserved to the state.

North Homes opposed the motion. It argued that the proposed amendments repeated Doe’s earlier allegations, that Doe had already had an opportunity to address the defects in her complaint, and that the court had not made a manifest error in its state-action analysis.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Rule 15’s ordinary standard for amending a complaint did not apply because Doe filed her motion after the court had dismissed the complaint. The court explained that the prior dismissal was a final judgment even though it was without prejudice. Before amendment could be allowed, Doe first had to obtain relief from that judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). The court treated her motion under Rule 59(e), which governs motions challenging the correctness of a final judgment.

A Rule 59(e) motion may correct a manifest error of law affecting the judgment, but it is not a way to repeat arguments that could have been made before judgment. The court found that Doe’s argument—that involuntary detention is a power reserved to the state—was the same argument she had previously presented. The court had considered and rejected that argument and had not overlooked it.

The court also rejected Doe’s effort to analogize North Homes to private prisons and detention centers that had been found to involve state action. Based on the allegations in Doe’s complaint, North Homes operated correctional, rehabilitative, and residential treatment facilities, but the complaint did not describe North Homes as a private prison operating under a state or county contract. The court reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that the complaint did not plausibly allege that North Homes or its employees performed public functions.

The court further concluded that its reliance on cases decided at different procedural stages did not establish a manifest error. Doe identified no legal authority showing that using cases articulating the applicable pleading standard was erroneous.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff Jane Doe’s motion to amend the complaint or, alternatively, to alter, amend, or seek relief from judgment under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).