Nyabwa v. Unknown Jailers at Corrections Corp. of America
700 F. App'x 379
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nyabwa, a deported detainee, sued unnamed jailers employed by Corrections Corporation of America alleging false imprisonment at a federal immigration detention center based on his Texas convictions for improper photography.
- After his release, a Texas court later held the Texas improper-photography statute unconstitutional in an unrelated case.
- The district court dismissed Nyabwa's Bivens claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, concluding Bivens does not extend to private entities, and dismissed his supplemental Texas false-imprisonment claim.
- The district court also denied Nyabwa's motions for recusal, a hearing on recusal, and default judgment, and certified his appeal was not taken in good faith, denying IFP on appeal.
- Nyabwa moved for leave to proceed IFP and for leave to file a supplemented/corrected brief; the Fifth Circuit permitted the supplemented brief but reviewed de novo and considered whether any appealable issue was nonfrivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is taken in good faith / IFP certification | Nyabwa contends his appeal raises nonfrivolous legal issues and seeks IFP. | District court certified appeal as not in good faith because claims were frivolous. | Denied IFP; appeal dismissed as frivolous. |
| Whether Bivens extends to damages against a private contractor operating a federal detention facility | Nyabwa argues he is actually innocent and seeks Bivens damages against private jailers. | Defendants rely on Supreme Court precedent that Bivens does not extend to private corporations in this context. | Bivens does not reach private contractor here; claim fails. |
| Whether supplemental Texas law false-imprisonment claim was stated | Nyabwa alleges false imprisonment under Texas law based on unconstitutional statute application. | Defendants argue Texas tort standards not met. | Court held Nyabwa failed to state a Texas false-imprisonment claim. |
| Whether the district judge should have recused or held a hearing / default judgment | Nyabwa asserted judicial bias and sought recusal, hearing, and default. | District court viewed recusal claims as conclusory and based on judicial acts in proceeding. | Recusal and hearing denied; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (federal prisoner cannot bring Bivens claim against private contractor for conduct properly remedied under state tort law)
- Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (Bivens does not authorize damages against private corporation operating federal halfway house)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for failure-to-state-a-claim dismissals)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing implied damages remedy for certain constitutional violations)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (standards for judicial recusal; bias must be personal and extrajudicial)
- Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273 (de novo review of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals)
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (standard for determining whether appeal is taken in good faith)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (good-faith inquiry limited to whether appeal presents nonfrivolous legal points)
- Pete v. Metcalfe, 8 F.3d 214 (standards for state-law false-imprisonment claims under supplemental jurisdiction)