Minneci v. Pollard
| Minneci v. Pollard | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided January 10, 2012 | |
| Full case name | Minneci v. Pollard |
| Citations | 565 U.S. 118 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Because in the circumstance of this case, state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions—providing both significant deterrence and compensation—no Bivens remedy can be implied here. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Dissent | Ginsburg |
Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that because in the circumstance of this case, state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions—providing both significant deterrence and compensation—no Bivens remedy can be implied here.[1][2]
Background
Richard Lee Pollard sought damages from employees at a privately run federal prison in California, claiming that they had deprived him of adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The federal district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the Eighth Amendment does not imply an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents against a privately managed prison's personnel. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.[1]
Opinion of the Court
The court issued an opinion on January 10, 2012.[1]
Subsequent developments
References
External links
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.