Minneci v. Pollard

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]

Minneci v. Pollard
Supreme Court of the United States
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
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Breyer
Concurrence	Scalia, joined by Thomas
Dissent	Ginsburg

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