## Facts

- Tennessee contracted with a private corporation to manage the South Central Correctional Center, a state correctional facility.
- Ronnie Lee McKnight, an inmate at the facility, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 damages action alleging that two guards employed by the private contractor placed him in extremely tight physical restraints, causing injury.
- The guards argued that, because they performed prison-security functions traditionally performed by the government, they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court denied qualified immunity, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether privately employed prison guards may claim qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit.

## Issues

1. Whether prison guards employed by a private prison management firm are entitled to qualified immunity from damages liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that prison guards employed by a private firm operating a state prison are not entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 suits.
- The Court emphasized that the analysis turns on (1) historical tradition of immunity for the defendant category and (2) whether immunity’s purposes justify protection in the relevant organizational setting.
- The Court found no firmly established historical tradition of immunity for privately employed prison guards.
- The Court concluded that the policy justifications for qualified immunity—especially avoiding “unwarranted timidity” by public officials—were weaker where a private, profit-seeking firm operates under market pressures, contract incentives, insurance requirements, and oversight mechanisms.
- The Court noted the holding was limited to the context of a fully privatized, commercially run prison and did not determine immunity questions for all private participants in government activity.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity under § 1983 is not automatically available to a defendant merely because the defendant performs a function that can be characterized as governmental.
- Whether a category of defendants receives § 1983 immunity depends on historical practice and the purposes served by immunity in the specific context.
- In a privately managed prison setting, market and contractual incentives (including insurance and competitive pressures) may reduce the need for qualified immunity as a tool to ensure effective performance.
- Denial of qualified immunity does not eliminate other potential defenses on the merits available to private defendants.

## Conclusion

The Court held that employees of a private prison management company cannot claim qualified immunity in § 1983 damages actions arising from their conduct as prison guards, because neither history nor the doctrine’s policy purposes support extending that protection in a fully privatized prison environment.


Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997)