NCJ Number
108949
Journal
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume: 40 Issue: 4 Dated: (May 1987) Pages: 867-888
Date Published
1987
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This analysis of the consequences of private contractors of corrections services becoming defendants in inmate litigation under Section 1983 of the Federal Code focuses on issues regarding state action, sovereign immunity, and qualified immunity.
Abstract
Inmates often seek redress in Federal courts through causes of action brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of their constitutional rights caused by the overall condition of their confinement or by one specific condition or incident. Section 1983 applies only to constitutional violations by persons 'acting under color of State law.' Under the symbiosis test, the nexus test, and the public function test, private corrections contractors are likely to be held accountable for confinement conditions. Courts have held that the 11th amendment bars citizens from Federal court suits against their own state or another State, absent the State's waiver of immunity or a congressional abrogation of immunity. A private company managing a prison or prison system could not assert the 11th amendment defense. Individual State officials may also rely on a defense of qualified immunity. Private prison officials do not have such immunity because they have voluntarily entered a field previously the exclusive province of the State for the purpose of making a profit. In so doing, they have accepted the responsibility for ensuring that inmates' constitutional rights are protected. 94 footnotes.