A federal court recently ruled on a long-standing case concerning high costs associated with inmate calling services. The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed claims against CoreCivic, Inc. and partially against Securus Technologies, Inc. The ruling impacts former inmates and their families who have faced exorbitant charges for phone calls.
The case, Wright v. Corrections Corp, filed under Civil Action No. 00-293 (TJK), has been ongoing for 25 years. It was initially brought by Martha Wright and others who alleged that CoreCivic and Securus imposed unfair charges on inmate calling services. The court's decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle for fair communication rates for incarcerated individuals.
Background
The plaintiffs in this case are individuals who were previously incarcerated in facilities operated by CoreCivic, a private corporation that manages prisons and jails. The lawsuit also involves Securus, a company that provides telecommunications services to correctional facilities across the United States. The plaintiffs argue that both companies engaged in practices that led to excessively high rates for inmate phone calls.
The lawsuit was initially filed in 2000 and has undergone several changes over the years, including a stay while the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) addressed related issues. In 2013, the FCC issued an Interim Order that capped rates for interstate inmate calls, acknowledging that the existing market structure was not fair. This order was later expanded in 2015, leading to further developments in the case.
The Ruling
In the recent ruling, Judge Timothy J. Kelly dismissed all claims against CoreCivic and most claims against Securus. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue CoreCivic despite its arguments to the contrary. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) and for unjust enrichment against CoreCivic.
The court ruled, "Plaintiffs do not have a consumer-merchant relationship with CoreCivic, so they cannot sue it for violating the CPPA."
Regarding Securus, the court ruled that while the plaintiffs had standing, they did not adequately allege violations of the Federal Communications Act in part. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not hold Securus accountable for actions prior to the FCC's Interim Order in 2014.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing fight for fair inmate calling rates. By dismissing the claims against CoreCivic, the court has limited the avenues available for former inmates and their families to seek restitution for high calling costs. The ruling could also influence future cases regarding inmate communication services, as it clarifies the legal standards for establishing a consumer-merchant relationship in this context.
The decision may discourage similar lawsuits against private prison companies unless plaintiffs can demonstrate a direct consumer relationship. It also raises questions about the accountability of telecommunications providers in the inmate calling market.
What's Next
While the plaintiffs can appeal the court's decision, it remains to be seen whether they will pursue this option. The case's dismissal does not preclude the possibility of related cases emerging as the legal landscape surrounding inmate communication services continues to evolve.