Minneci v. Pollard, , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actionsâÂÂproviding both significant deterrence and compensationâÂÂno Bivens remedy can be implied.
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.
The court issued an opinion on January 10, 2012.