Minneci v. Pollard

• Decision Date: 10 January 2012
• Docket Number: No. 10–1104.,10–1104.
• Parties: Margaret MINNECI, et al., Petitioners, v. Richard Lee POLLARD, et al.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

565 U.S. 118

132 S.Ct. 617

181 L.Ed.2d 606

Margaret MINNECI, et al., Petitioners,

v.Richard Lee POLLARD, et al.

No. 10–1104.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Nov. 1, 2011.

Decided Jan. 10, 2012.

Jonathan S. Franklin, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Pratik A. Shah, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Petitioners.

John F. Preis, Richmond, VA, for Respondents.

Jonathan S. Franklin, Counsel of Record, Mark Emery Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Brian Wolfman, Georgetown University, Institute for Public Representation, Washington, DC, John F. Preis, Counsel of Record, University of Richmond, School of Law, Richmond, VA, Counsel for Respondent, Scott L. Nelson, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) ( "[V]iolation 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, 127 S.Ct. 2588, 168 L.Ed.2d 389 (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 sought damages.

Pollard said that a year earlier he had slipped on a cart left in the doorway of the prison's butcher shop. The prison medical staff took x rays, thought he might have fractured both elbows, brought him to an outside clinic for further orthopedic evaluation, and subsequently arranged for surgery. In particular, Pollard claimed:

(1) Despite his having told a prison guard that he could not extend his arm, the guard forced him to put on a jumpsuit (to travel to the outside clinic), causing him "the most excruciating pain," App. 32;

(2) During several visits to the outside clinic, prison guards made Pollard wear arm restraints that were connected in a way that caused him continued pain;

(3) Prison medical (and other) personnel failed to follow the outside clinic's instructions to put Pollard's left elbow in a posterior splint, failed to provide necessary physical therapy, and failed to conduct necessary studies, including nerve conduction studies

;

(4) At times when Pollard's arms were in casts or similarly disabled, prison officials failed to make alternative arrangements for him to receive meals, with the result that (to avoid "being humiliated" in the general food service area, id., at 35) Pollard had to auction off personal items to obtain funds to buy food at the commissary;(5) Prison officials deprived him of basic hygienic care to the point where he could not bathe for two weeks;

(6) Prison medical staff provided him with insufficient medicine, to the point where he was in pain and could not sleep; and

(7) Prison officials forced him to return to work before his injuries had healed.

After concluding that the Eighth Amendment did not provide for a Bivens action against a privately managed prison's personnel, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court dismiss Pollard's complaint. The District Court did so. But on appeal the Ninth Circuit found that the Eighth Amendment provided Pollard with a Bivens action, and it reversed the District Court. Pollard v. The GEO Group, Inc., 607 F.3d 583, 603, as amended, 629 F.3d 843, 868 (C.A.9 2010).

The defendants sought certiorari. And, in light of a split among the Courts of Appeals, we granted the petition. Compare ibid. (finding an Eighth Amendment Bivens action where prisoner sues employees of a privately operated federal prison), with, e.g ., Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1254–1256 (C.A.11 2008) (no Bivens action available), and Holly v. Scott, 434 F.3d 287, 288 (C.A.4 2006) (same).

II

Recently, in Wilkie v. Robbins, supra, we rejected a claim that the Fifth Amendment impliedly authorized a Bivens action that would permit landowners to obtain damages from government officials who unconstitutionally interfere with their exercise of property rights. After reviewing the Court's earlier Bivens cases, the Court stated:

"[T]he decision whether to recognize a Bivens remedy may require two steps. In the first place, there is the question whether any alternative, existing process for protecting the [constitutionally recognized] interest amounts to a convincing reason for the Judicial Branch to refrain from providing a new and freestanding remedy in damages.... But even in the absence of an alternative, a Bivens remedy is a subject of judgment: ‘the federal courts must make the kind of remedial determination that is appropriate for a common-law tribunal, paying particular heed, however, to any special factors counselling hesitation before authorizing a new kind of federal litigation.’ " 551 U.S., at 550, 127 S.Ct. 2588 (quoting Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 378, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983) ).

These standards seek to reflect and to reconcile the Court's reasoning set forth in earlier cases. In Bivens itself the Court held that the Fourth Amendment implicitly authorized a court to order federal agents to pay damages to a person injured by the agents' violation of the Amendment's constitutional strictures. 403 U.S., at 389, 91 S.Ct. 1999. The Court noted that " ‘where federally protected rights have been invaded,’ " courts can " ‘adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief.’ " Id., at 392, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) ). See also Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001) ("authority to imply a new constitutional tort" anchored within general " ‘arising under’ " jurisdiction). It pointed out that the Fourth Amendment prohibited, among other things, conduct that state law might permit (such as the conduct at issue in that very case). Bivens, 403 U.S., at 392–393, 91 S.Ct. 1999. It added that the interests protected on the one hand by state "trespass" and "invasion of privacy" laws and on the other hand by the Fourth Amendment's guarantees "may be inconsistent or even hostile." Id., at 394, 91 S.Ct. 1999. It stated that "[h]istorically, damages have been regarded as the ordinary remedy for an invasion of personal interests in liberty." Id., at 395, 91 S.Ct. 1999. And it found "no special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress." Id., at 396, 91 S.Ct. 1999.

In Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), the Court considered a former congressional employee's claim for damages suffered as a result of her employer's unconstitutional discrimination based on gender. The Court found a damages action implicit in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Id., at 248–249, 99 S.Ct. 2264. In doing so, the Court emphasized the unavailability of "other alternative forms of judicial relief." Id., at 245, 99 S.Ct. 2264. And the Court noted that there was "no evidence" that Congress (or the Constitution) intended to foreclose such a remedy. Id., at 247, 99 S.Ct. 2264.

In Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980), the Court considered a claim for damages brought by the estate of a federal prisoner who (the estate said) had died as the result of government officials' "deliberat[e] indifferen[ce]" to his medical needs—indifference that violated the Eighth Amendment. Id., at 16, n. 1, 17, 100 S.Ct. 1468 (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ). The Court implied an action for damages from the Eighth Amendment. 446 U.S., at 17–18, 100 S.Ct. 1468. It noted that state law offered the particular plaintiff no meaningful damages remedy. Id., at 17, n. 4, 100 S.Ct. 1468. Although the estate might have brought a damages claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the defendant in any such lawsuit was the employer, namely the United States, not the individual officers who had committed the violation. Id., at 21, 100 S.Ct. 1468. A damages remedy against an individual officer, the Court added, would prove a more effective deterrent. Ibid. And, rather than leave compensation to the "vagaries" of state tort law, a federal Bivens action would provide "uniform rules." 446 U.S., at 23, 100 S.Ct. 1468.

Since Carlson, the Court has had to decide in several different instances whether to imply a Bivens action. And in each instance it has decided against the existence of such an action. These instances include:

(1) A federal employee's claim that his federal employer dismissed him in violation of the First Amendment, Bush, supra, at 386–388, 103 S.Ct. 2404 (congressionally created federal civil service procedures provide meaningful redress);(2) A claim by military personnel that military superiors violated various constitutional provisions, Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 298–300, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983) (special factors related to the military counsel against implying a Bivens action), see also United States v....