Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko
| Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 1, 2001 Decided November 27, 2001 | |
| Full case name | Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko |
| Citations | 534 U.S. 61 (more) 122 S. Ct. 515; 151 L. Ed. 2d 456 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 229 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 532 U.S. 902 (2001). |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court found that implied damages actions first recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents[1] should not be extended to allow recovery against a private corporation operating a halfway house under contract with the Bureau of Prisons.
A Bivens action is a civil rights violation suit against the government. The Supreme Court limited this court-invented private right of action to exclude corporate defendants like Correctional Services Corporation. Plaintiff's actions against the individual employees were barred by the statute of limitations because the names of the John Doe defendant prison guards (esp. Jorge Urena) were not known to the plaintiff.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
External links
[edit]
Works related to Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko at Wikisource- Text of Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |