Margaret Minneci, et al. v. Richard Lee Pollard et al. (565 U.S. 118)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 10, 2012 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 565 U.S. 118 · 132 S. Ct. 617
- Decided
- January 10, 2012
- Term
- October Term 2011
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The question is whether we can imply the existence of an Eighth Amendment-based damages action (a Bivens action) against employees of a privately operated federal prison. See generally Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 389 (1971) (“[Violation of [the Fourth Amendment] by a federal agent . . . gives rise to a cause of action for damages” against a Federal Government employee). Because we believe that in the circumstances present here state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions — actions that provide both significant deterrence and compensation — we cannot do so. See Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U. S. 537, 550 (2007) (no Bivens action where “alternative, existing” processes provide adequate protection). I Richard Lee Pollard was a prisoner at a federal facility operated by a private company, the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. In 2002 he filed a pro se complaint in federal court against several Wackenhut employees, who (now) include a security officer, a food-services supervisor, and several members of the medical staff. As the Federal Magistrate Judge interpreted Pollard’s complaint, he claimed that these employees had deprived him of adequate medical care, had thereby violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual” punishment, and had caused him injury. He…
Excerpt of a 21,520-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.