Collins Nyabwa v. Corrections Corp. of America
703 F. App'x 355
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nyabwa, detained at a federal immigration facility operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), sued under Bivens claiming false imprisonment tied to three Texas convictions for improper photography.
- After his release, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later held the improper-photography statute unconstitutional in an unrelated case.
- The district court dismissed Nyabwa’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), finding Bivens does not extend to damages claims against private entities and that he failed to state a Texas false-imprisonment claim.
- The district court also denied his motions for declaratory relief (actual innocence), summary judgment, leave to amend (futility), recusal, and a recusal hearing.
- The district court certified that Nyabwa’s appeal was not taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis (IFP) status; Nyabwa sought IFP on appeal and filed supplemental briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens authorizes damages against a private corporation operating a federal detention facility | Nyabwa argued Bivens should allow recovery against CCA and that his asserted actual innocence distinguishes the case | Malesko and precedent bar Bivens suits against private corporations performing federal functions | Court: Bivens does not extend to private-entity defendant; claim dismissed |
| Whether Nyabwa stated a Texas false-imprisonment claim under supplemental jurisdiction | Nyabwa asserted facts supporting false imprisonment based on allegedly invalid convictions | Defendant argued state-law elements not met under Texas law and precedent | Court: Failed to plead a viable Texas false-imprisonment claim; dismissed |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Nyabwa sought to add facts to cure defects and assert actual innocence | District court found he had opportunity to plead fully and proposed amendments would be futile | Court: Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion (futility) |
| Whether appeal is taken in good faith for IFP and whether other relief (summary judgment, declaratory relief, recusal) was proper | Nyabwa challenged the certification and said his claims are nonfrivolous; sought summary judgment, declaratory relief, and recusal | District court argued claims were frivolous, lacked controversy for declaratory relief, and recusal requests were conclusory | Court: Appeal not in good faith; IFP denied; appeal dismissed as frivolous; summary judgment and declaratory relief denied; recusal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages action against federal officers)
- Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (Bivens does not extend to private corporations performing federal functions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (standards for judicial recusal and bias)
- Pete v. Metcalfe, 8 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 1993) (Texas false-imprisonment standards in federal court)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (actual-innocence framework referenced by plaintiff)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Resendez, 962 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. 1998) (Texas law on imprisonment and related tort principles)