## Facts

- Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), a private company, operated the Le Marquis Community Correctional Center under contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
- John E. Malesko, a federal inmate with a heart condition limiting stair climbing, was housed on the fifth floor.
- CSC maintained a policy requiring many inmates to use stairs rather than the elevator; Malesko was medically exempted.
- A CSC employee nonetheless denied Malesko elevator access.
- Malesko climbed stairs, suffered a heart attack, fell, and was injured.
- Malesko sued for damages, alleging negligence and constitutional violations, and sought a Bivens remedy against CSC.

## Issues

1. Whether a Bivens implied damages action should be extended to permit recovery against a private corporation operating a federal halfway house under contract for alleged constitutional violations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
- The Court held that Bivens does not extend to private corporate entities acting under color of federal law.
- The Court emphasized Bivens’ limited scope and its reluctance to create new implied constitutional damages actions, particularly when other remedies exist.

## Legal Principles

- Bivens is a limited, judicially implied damages remedy primarily aimed at deterring unconstitutional conduct by individual federal officers.
- A Bivens action lies against individual federal officers, not against federal agencies, and not against private corporations performing federal functions under contract.
- Extending Bivens to corporate defendants would shift the remedy toward employer or vicarious liability, which Bivens was not designed to impose.
- The availability of alternative remedies (including state tort law claims against the corporation or its employees) counsels against extending Bivens to new categories of defendants.
- Decisions to create new constitutional damages remedies are generally for Congress, especially where the Court has not identified a remedial gap requiring a judicially implied action.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a federal inmate may not maintain a Bivens damages action against a private corporation operating a federal correctional facility under contract, leaving plaintiffs to pursue other available remedies such as state tort claims rather than an expanded implied constitutional cause of action.


Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001)