## Facts

- Richard Lee Pollard, a federal inmate, was housed at Taft Correctional Institution, a federally contracted prison operated by a private company.
- Pollard injured both elbows after slipping on a cart left in a doorway.
- Pollard alleged prison employees required him to wear a jumpsuit and a “black box” wrist restraint during transport to an outside orthopedic clinic, causing severe pain given his injuries.
- He claimed prison personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment.
- Pollard sought damages directly under the Eighth Amendment through an implied action under *Bivens* against individual employees of the privately operated prison, rather than relying solely on state tort law.

## Issues

1. Whether an implied damages action under *Bivens* should be recognized against employees of a privately operated federal prison for alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference conduct.
2. Whether the availability of state tort remedies providing compensation and deterrence is a sufficient reason to decline creating a new federal implied constitutional damages remedy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit in an 8–1 decision.
- The Court held that no *Bivens* remedy is available against employees of a privately operated federal prison where state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions.
- The Court concluded that state tort law remedies supply sufficient deterrence and compensation for the type of conduct alleged.
- Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas) concurred in the judgment, expressing broader opposition to extending *Bivens*.
- Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing that a prisoner’s access to a constitutional damages remedy should not turn on whether the prison is privately or publicly operated.

## Legal Principles

- A court should not imply a *Bivens* remedy when “alternative, existing” legal processes provide a convincing reason to refrain from creating a new federal damages action.
- The availability of adequate state tort remedies for negligence or medically related misconduct can bar extension of *Bivens* to Eighth Amendment claims against private prison employees.
- Expansion of *Bivens* beyond the limited contexts previously recognized is disfavored, particularly where private actors are involved and state law already regulates the relevant conduct.
- The comparison to prior Eighth Amendment *Bivens* recognition involving federal employees does not require the same result when defendants are private employees and state tort law provides meaningful remedies.

## Conclusion

The Court refused to extend *Bivens* to permit Eighth Amendment damages claims against individual employees of a privately operated federal prison because state tort law offered adequate alternative avenues for compensation and deterrence, making a judicially implied federal remedy unwarranted.


Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (2012)