Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko
No. 00-860 (U.S. Nov. 27, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54279
Description
Prisoner Does Not Have a Right of Action for Damages Against Private Contractor Operating Prison Facility
Abstract
The Supreme Court has held that the limited holding in Bivens
v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), may
not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against
private entities acting under color of federal law. Respondent
prisoner has a heart condition. Petitioner, a corporation under
contract with the federal Bureau of Prisons to operate a federal
corrections facility, assigned prisoner a bedroom on the
fifth-floor bedroom, and respondent suffered a heart attack
climbing the stairs to his room. Respondent filed a damages action
against petitioner and individual defendants alleging, inter alia,
that they were negligent in refusing him the use of the elevator.
The district court dismissed the action, reasoning that a
Bivens action may only be maintained against an
individual, not a corporate entity. Reversing, the Second Circuit
held that private entities should be held liable under
Bivens to accomplish the important Bivens'
goal of providing a remedy for constitutional violations. The
Supreme Court held respondent’s only remedy lies against the
offending individual officers. The Court noted that
Bivens’ purpose is to deter individual federal
officers, not the agency from committing constitutional violations.
Citing FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994), the Court found
that the threat of suit against an individual’s employer was
not the kind of deterrence contemplated by Bivens. The
Court rejected respondent’s claim that requiring private
corporations acting under color of federal law to pay for the
constitutional harms they commit is the best way to discourage
future harms. The Court noted that respondent has other effective
remedies, including a parallel tort remedy that is unavailable to
prisoners housed in government facilities.
