Balancing the Separation of Powers and Right-Remedy Principles in Minneci V. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (2012)

By Howe, Zach | Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Spring 2013 | Go to article overview

Balancing the Separation of Powers and Right-Remedy Principles in Minneci V. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (2012)


Howe, Zach, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy


In the 1972 case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court held that the courts had power to create damage remedies for violations of constitutional rights by those acting pursuant to federal law. (1) The Court failed, however, to issue specific instructions regarding the use and applicability of this newly spawned "Bivens remedy." (2) In the thirty-five years following its holding in Bivens, the Court extended the new remedy only twice. (3) Then, in Wilkie v. Robbins, (4) the Court established two hurdles that must be overcome before applying Bivens. First, Bivens does not apply when alternative remedies provide a "convincing reason" to refrain from extending the doctrine. (5) Second, courts must determine whether "special factors counseling hesitation" bar creation of a remedy. (6) By substantially narrowing Bivens, Wilkie signaled a growing reluctance by the Court to create unrestricted remedies of its own accord.

Last Term, in Minneci v. Pollard, (7) the Supreme Court further narrowed Bivens, holding that employees of private prisons who are found guilty of constitutional violations are not subject to damage claims under the Eighth Amendment because there are alternative state remedies for such violations. (8) By stringently interpreting the previously ambiguous first step of Wilkie but nevertheless preserving the Bivens remedy for use in cases where no alternative relief exists, the Court largely validated deep-seated separation of powers concerns expressed in prior precedent while simultaneously making a pragmatic effort to uphold Chief Justice Marshall's belief that a right must always entail a remedy. (9)

The facts of Minneci are as follows. In 2001 and 2002, Richard Pollard was a prisoner at a federal prison operated by the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. (10) During his imprisonment, Pollard slipped and fell on a cart left in a doorway, seriously injuring his elbows. (11) According to Pollard, prison employees forced him to dress in a jumpsuit and wear uncomfortable arm restraints when traveling to an orthopedist for treatment, causing him serious pain. (12) The employees later failed to follow the orthopedist's instructions to place Pollard's left arm in a splint, refused to make alternative arrangements when he was unable to feed or bathe himself, provided him with insufficient medicine, and forced him to return to work before his injuries had healed. (13) Pollard subsequently brought suit against several prison employees, (14) alleging Eighth Amendment violations and seeking damages under Bivens. (15) The district court, adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge assigned to the case, found that no Bivens claim was available against employees of a privately operated prison because Pollard could have sought alternative tort remedies and because the prison employees were not acting "under color of federal law." (16)

Pollard appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed. (17) The court noted that the Supreme Court had never previously addressed whether a state remedy might preclude Bivens actions, but concluded that the Wilkie test favored extending Bivens in this case. (18) Looking to the first prong of the Wilkie test, the court held that Pollard's ability to seek tort remedies did not provide a "convincing reason" to stay a Bivens remedy. (19) The court adduced two reasons for this conclusion. First, because the available relief was a state remedy, a judicially crafted remedy would not implicate separation of powers concerns. (20) Second, allowing state tort remedies to displace Bivens actions would frustrate the goal of providing uniform remedies for constitutional violations because there are differences among the states' tort remedies, including the presence or absence of caps on non-economic damages and differing statutes of limitations. (21) With respect to the second prong of the Wilkie test, the court found no "special factors" counseling against extension of Bivens.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Balancing the Separation of Powers and Right-Remedy Principles in Minneci V. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (2012)
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.