Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsBivensStatute of LimitationsRelation BackGovernment Contractor DefenseBivensprivate corporationfederal action

Facts

Malesko was serving the remainder of a federal sentence in a halfway house operated for the Bureau of Prisons by CSC, a private corporation. He had a known heart condition, had been permitted to use an elevator to reach his fifth-floor room, and alleged that CSC instituted a policy requiring inmates below the sixth floor to use stairs. On March 28, 1994, a CSC employee allegedly forced him to take the stairs despite his reminder about his condition, and Malesko suffered a heart attack and fell; he also alleged CSC had failed to refill his heart medication. He timely sued CSC and Doe defendants, but did not identify individual employees by name until after the three-year limitations period expired.

Issue

Whether a private corporation acting under color of federal law may be sued under Bivens, and whether CSC could avoid such a claim through the government contractor defense. The court also considered whether Malesko's later naming of individual CSC employees could relate back under Rule 15(c) after the limitations period had run.

Rule

A private corporation acting under color of federal law may be subject to liability under Bivens. The government contractor defense applies only where the government exercised discretion and judgment in approving reasonably precise specifications that the contractor followed. Under Rule 15(c), an amendment naming previously unknown defendants does not relate back when the original failure to name them resulted from lack of knowledge of their identities rather than a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.

🔒

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.

Redwood Custodial Services, a private company based in Phoenix, contracts with the federal government to run a residential reentry center for federal inmates in Tucson. Malik Turner alleges that Redwood adopted its own policy of denying wheelchair-accessible transportation to residents returning from medical appointments, causing him serious injury.

Assuming Malik adequately alleges that Redwood was performing a federal custodial function, which is the strongest argument against dismissal of his constitutional damages claim against Redwood?

Explanation. The majority held that a private corporation acting under color of federal law may be sued under Bivens. The key limitation is federal action; the opinion did not say all private corporations are suable, only those acting on behalf of the federal government in a way that constitutes action under color of federal law. (Derived from Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation (n.d.).)