Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko

Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsBivensImplied constitutional remediesBivensprivate corporationfederal contractorconstitutional tortdeterrence

Facts

Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), a private corporation under contract with the Bureau of Prisons, operated a halfway house in New York City where respondent Malesko served part of his federal sentence. Malesko had a heart condition that limited his ability to climb stairs and was exempt from a facility policy requiring certain inmates to use the stairs instead of the elevator. He alleged that a CSC employee nonetheless refused him elevator access, causing him to climb the stairs, suffer a heart attack, and injure his ear. Malesko sued CSC and CSC employees, but the individual claims were dismissed as untimely, leaving only whether he could pursue a Bivens damages action against CSC.

Issue

Should Bivens be extended to permit a damages action against a private corporation operating a halfway house under contract with the federal Bureau of Prisons? More specifically, may a federal prisoner recover under Bivens from the private corporate employer rather than from an individual officer?

Rule

Bivens is a limited implied damages remedy aimed at deterring individual federal officers from committing constitutional violations. It will not be extended to new categories of defendants, including private corporations acting under color of federal law, especially where the plaintiff has alternative avenues of redress and the proposed extension would not advance Bivens's core deterrent purpose.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Cortez is a federal detainee housed in a detention center in Phoenix run by Desert Harbor Custodial Services, a private company under contract with a federal bureau. She alleges that a facility policy prevented her from receiving medically necessary meals and sues only the company for damages under the Fifth Amendment.

How should the court rule on the damages claim against the company?

Explanation. The majority held that Bivens is a limited implied damages remedy aimed at deterring individual officers, not employers or entities. A plaintiff may not use Bivens to recover damages from a private corporation acting under color of federal law. The fact that the alleged harm stems from company policy does not change that result, because Bivens is not concerned with deterring policymaking entities.