Margaret Minneci v. Richard Lee Pollard

Summary

The Supreme Court held that no Eighth Amendment-based Bivens damages action may be implied against employees of a privately operated federal prison where the alleged misconduct—inadequate medical care and related mistreatment—is of a kind that typically falls within traditional state tort law, because state tort law supplies adequate alternative remedies providing both significant deterrence and compensation. Applying the two-step approach of Wilkie v. Robbins and building on Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment recognizing such an action and left the prisoner to state tort remedies. Justice Scalia, concurring and joined by Justice Thomas, agreed with the result but would confine Bivens and its progeny to their precise original circumstances; Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit, contending that potentially available state tort remedies do not block a federal remedy for conduct that offends the Constitution when done by official actors.