Ailemen v. GEO Group, 1:15-cv-00199

Plaintiff Pius Ailemen, a federal inmate housed at Big Spring Correctional Center (a private facility run by GEO Group, Inc.), alleges from May 2015 to Feb 2016 he was repeatedly denied access to services because of gang control and extortion, causing emotional and financial harm.
Ailemen filed a pro se amended civil-rights complaint and a supplement; the court screened the pleadings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B).
He sought monetary relief for alleged constitutional violations by federal actors and employees of the private prison.
Defendants named were the GEO Group, Inc. (private operator) and the Bureau of Prisons (federal agency); no individual defendants were pursued with particularized factual allegations.
The court construed the claims as Bivens-style constitutional claims but reviewed whether Bivens relief was available against the named defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Bivens remedy is available against the Bureau of Prisons	Ailemen asserts constitutional violations by federal actors/bureau while a federal prisoner	BOP is a federal agency and not a proper Bivens defendant	Bivens claims are not available against federal agencies; claims against BOP dismissed
Whether a Bivens remedy is available against GEO Group, Inc. (private prison)	Ailemen seeks relief for constitutional violations occurring at a privately run facility	GEO Group is a private corporation; Supreme Court has declined to extend Bivens to private corporations/employees when other remedies exist	Bivens does not extend to private prison corporations or their employees in these circumstances; claims dismissed
Whether pleadings state a non-frivolous claim under §§ 1915A/1915(e)(2)(B)	Alleged denial of services and extortion by gangs amounted to constitutional deprivations warranting damages	Even accepting facts, legal avenue (Bivens) is unavailable against named defendants	Complaint dismissed with prejudice as legally barred under screening statutes
Whether leave to amend was appropriate	Plaintiff sought relief via amended complaint and supplement	Court considered amendment but law barred the claims as a matter of law against named entities	All claims dismissed with prejudice; no viable Bivens claim against named defendants

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous-claim standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requirement: plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for constitutional claims)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing Bivens cause of action)
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (Bivens not available against federal agencies)
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (Bivens not extended to private corporations operating federal facilities)
Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (declining to extend Bivens to private-prison employees where state remedies suffice)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (limits on extending Bivens)