Minneci v. Pollard
| Minneci v. Pollard | |
|---|---|
![]() | |
| Decided January 10, 2012 | |
| Full case name | Minneci v. Pollard |
| Citations | 565 U.S. 118 (more) |
| Holding | |
| When state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions—providing both significant deterrence and compensation—no Bivens remedy can be implied. | |
| 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, when state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions—providing both significant deterrence and compensation—no Bivens remedy can be implied.[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
- Text of Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (2012) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Internet Archive (docket files) Justia
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.
- January 2012 in the United States
- United States Supreme Court cases in 2012
- United States Supreme Court cases
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
- United States prison case law
- Private prisons in the United States
- Implied constitutional cause of action case law
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court stubs
