Minneci v. Pollard
132 S. Ct. 617
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Pollard, a prisoner at a federal facility operated by Wackenhut Corrections Corp., sues privately employed prison personnel for Eighth Amendment violations.
- Pollard alleges medical neglect and related harms from guards, medical staff, and others during 2002 events following a slip near the prison’s butcher shop.
- District court dismissed; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding an Eighth Amendment Bivens action could be brought against private prison staff.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari due to circuit split on whether Bivens extends to privately operated federal prisons.
- Court concludes that state tort law provides adequate, existing remedies, thus no Bivens action against private prison staff should be implied.
- Pollard’s arguments focus on Carlson’s prisoner-facing Bivens action against government employees, contrasted with the private-employer context here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Bivens action lies against privately employed prison staff. | Pollard argues Carlson controls; private staff can be sued for Eighth Amendment harm. | Defendants contend state tort remedies suffice and no Bivens implied remedy is warranted. | No Bivens action; state tort law provides adequate remedies. |
| Whether state tort law offers adequate deterrence and compensation for Pollard’s harms. | State tort law complements constitutional protections and deters misconduct. | State remedies suffice and provide comparable deterrence and compensation. | State tort remedies are adequate; Bivens not implied. |
| Is Pollard’s Eighth Amendment claim sufficiently akin to conduct typically barred or remedied by state torts? | Claims fall within California-type tort duties owed by jailers. | Private-employer context creates different incentives and remedies. | Yes; conduct falls within traditional state tort duties; remedy exists. |
| Do potential gaps in state tort law defeat the availability of a Bivens remedy? | There might be cases not covered by state tort law. | Cannot justify Bivens where adequate state remedies exist. | Cannot identify a sufficient gap to justify a Bivens remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1980) (implied Eighth Amendment damages action where no adequate state remedy)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (establishes implied damages action for federal officers when no adequate alternative)
- Malesko, Correctional Servs. Corp. v., 534 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2001) (rejected extending Bivens to private prison employer; alternative remedies exist)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (U.S. 2007) (two-step inquiry for recognizing Bivens remedies; considers alternatives)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1979) (damages remedy may be implicit in Due Process when no remedy elsewhere)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1983) (judicial restraint in recognizing new damages remedies)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1988) (administrative schemes may preclude implied damages actions)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1994) (no Bivens actions against agencies; focus on individuals)
- Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1983) (military context; special factors counsel against Bivens)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (Eighth Amendment governing medical care in prisons)