richardson
et
al
mcknight
argued
march
decided
june
held
prison
guards
employed
private
firm
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
prisoners
charging
violation
pp
four
aspects
wyatt
cole
found
immunity
private
defendants
charged
invoking
state
replevin
garnishment
attachment
statutes
later
declared
unconstitutional
instructive
first
deters
state
actors
depriving
individuals
federally
protected
rights
sometimes
impose
liability
upon
private
individuals
second
distinction
exists
immunity
suit
frees
one
liability
whether
acted
wrongly
legal
defenses
may
well
involve
essence
wrong
third
history
purposes
underlying
immunity
determine
whether
private
defendants
enjoy
protection
suit
fourth
wyatt
holding
limited
narrow
question
applicable
private
individuals
pp
history
reveal
firmly
rooted
tradition
immunity
applicable
privately
employed
prison
guards
government
employed
prison
guards
may
enjoyed
kind
immunity
defense
arising
status
public
employees
common
law
see
procunier
navarette
correctional
functionshave
never
exclusively
public
century
private
entities
government
carried
prison
management
activities
conclusive
evidence
historical
tradition
immunity
private
parties
carrying
functions
pp
immunity
doctrine
purposes
also
warrant
immunity
private
prison
guards
mere
performance
governmental
function
support
immunity
private
person
especially
one
performs
job
without
government
supervision
direction
petitioners
argument
contrary
overlooks
certain
important
differences
critical
immunity
perspective
first
important
special
government
immunity
producing
concern
protecting
public
unwarranted
timidity
part
public
officials
less
likely
present
private
company
subject
competitive
market
pressures
operates
prison
firm
whose
guards
aggressive
face
damages
raise
costs
thereby
threatening
replacement
another
contractor
firm
whose
guards
timid
face
replacement
firms
safer
effective
job
records
marketplace
pressures
present
firm
systematically
organized
performs
independently
statutorily
obligated
carry
insurance
must
renew
first
contract
three
years
provide
private
firm
incentives
avoid
overly
timid
job
performance
extent
employees
differ
government
employees
act
within
system
responsible
elected
officials
voters
often
characterized
civil
service
rules
providing
employee
security
limiting
government
departments
flexibility
reward
punish
individual
employees
second
privatization
helps
meet
immunity
related
need
ensure
talented
candidates
deterred
threat
damages
suits
entering
public
service
comprehensive
insurance
coverage
increases
likelihood
employee
indemnification
extent
reduces
employment
discouraging
fear
unwarranted
liability
since
private
firm
also
freed
many
civil
service
restraints
unlike
government
department
may
offset
increased
employee
liability
risk
higher
pay
extra
benefits
third
lawsuits
may
distract
private
employees
duties
risk
distraction
alone
sufficient
grounds
immunity
tennessee
decided
extend
sovereign
immunity
private
prison
operators
moreover
understood
anticipated
certain
amount
distraction
pp
closes
three
caveats
first
focus
immunity
liability
second
immunity
question
answered
narrowly
context
arose
thus
involve
private
individual
briefly
associated
government
body
serving
adjunct
government
essential
governmental
activity
acting
close
official
supervision
third
opinion
expressed
issue
whether
petitioners
might
assert
immunity
special
good
faith
defense
pp
affirmed
breyer
delivered
opinion
stevens
souter
ginsburg
joined
scalia
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
kennedy
thomas
joined
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
wash
ington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
daryll
richardson
john
walker
petitioners
ronnie
lee
mcknight
writ
certiorari
appeals
sixth
circuit
june
justice
breyer
delivered
opinion
issue
us
whether
prison
guards
employees
private
prison
management
firm
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
prisoners
charging
violation
hold
ronnie
lee
mcknight
prisoner
tennessee
south
central
correctional
center
sccc
brought
federal
constitutional
tort
action
two
prison
guards
darryl
richardson
john
walker
says
guards
injured
placing
upon
extremely
tight
physical
restraints
thereby
unlawfully
subject
ing
deprivation
right
secured
constitution
rev
stat
richardson
walker
asserted
qualified
immunity
lawsuits
see
harlow
fitzgerald
moved
dismiss
action
district
noted
tennessee
privatized
management
number
correctional
facilities
consequently
private
firm
state
government
employed
guards
see
code
ann
et
seq
supp
see
generally
cody
bennett
theprivatization
correctional
institutions
tennessee
experience
vand
rev
outlining
state
history
private
correctional
services
held
worked
private
company
rather
government
law
grant
guards
immunity
suit
therefore
denied
guards
motion
dismiss
guards
appealed
sixth
circuit
see
mitchell
forsyth
permitting
interlocutory
appeals
qualified
immunity
determinations
see
also
johnson
jones
behrens
pelletier
also
ruled
mcknight
rees
appeals
conceded
courts
reached
varying
conclusions
whether
extent
private
sector
defendants
entitled
immunities
sort
law
provides
governmental
defendants
see
eagon
elk
city
williams
cert
denied
frazier
bailey
concluded
primarily
reasons
public
policy
privately
employed
prison
guards
entitled
immunity
provided
governmental
counterparts
granted
certiorari
review
holding
affirm
take
recent
case
wyatt
cole
pertinent
authority
considered
whether
private
defendants
charged
liability
invoking
state
replevin
garnishment
attachment
statutes
later
declared
unconstitutional
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
held
find
four
aspects
wyatt
relevant
first
wyatt
noted
basically
seeks
deter
state
actors
using
badge
authority
deprive
individuals
federally
guaranteed
rights
provide
related
relief
emphasis
added
citing
carey
piphus
see
also
owen
independence
imposes
liability
person
acts
color
state
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
nonetheless
wyatt
reaffirmed
sometimes
impose
liability
upon
private
individual
see
also
lugar
edmondson
oil
second
wyatt
reiterated
harlow
supra
reformulation
qualified
immunity
doctrine
see
anderson
creighton
distinction
exists
immunity
suit
kinds
legal
defenses
see
also
mitchell
supra
wyatt
concurrence
pointed
legal
defense
may
well
involve
essence
wrong
immunity
frees
one
enjoys
lawsuit
whether
acted
wrongly
kennedy
concurring
third
wyatt
specified
legal
source
immunities
pointed
although
creates
species
tort
liability
face
admits
immunities
quoting
imbler
pachtman
nonetheless
accorded
immunity
tradition
immunity
firmly
rooted
common
law
supported
strong
policy
reasons
congress
specifically
provided
wished
abolish
doctrine
quoting
owen
independence
fourth
wyatt
consider
answer
question
one
applicable
private
individuals
irrespective
nature
relation
government
position
kind
liability
issue
rather
wyatt
explicitly
limited
holding
called
narrow
question
private
persons
conspire
state
officials
answered
question
stating
private
defendants
faced
liability
invoking
state
replevin
garnishment
attachment
statute
entitled
immunity
wyatt
answer
legal
question
us
whether
respondents
two
employees
private
prison
management
firm
enjoy
qualified
immunity
suit
tell
us
however
look
history
purposes
underlie
government
employee
immunity
order
find
answer
see
also
newport
fact
concerts
owen
supra
imbler
supra
history
reveal
firmly
rooted
tradition
immunity
applicable
privately
employed
prison
guards
correctional
services
undergone
various
transformations
see
shichor
punishment
profit
shichor
government
employed
prison
guards
may
enjoyed
kind
immunity
defense
arising
status
public
employees
common
law
see
procunier
navarette
extending
qualified
immunity
state
prison
guards
correctional
functions
never
exclusively
public
shichor
private
individuals
operated
local
jails
century
bowman
hakim
seidenstat
privatizing
justice
system
private
contractors
heavily
involved
prison
management
century
shichor
time
including
southern
like
tennessee
leased
entire
prison
systems
private
individuals
companies
frequently
took
complete
control
prison
management
including
inmate
labor
discipline
bowman
hakim
seidenstat
privatizing
correctional
institutions
see
generally
mckelvey
american
prisons
study
american
social
history
prior
pp
describing
century
american
prison
system
see
also
shichor
de
beaumont
de
tocqueville
penitentiary
system
application
france
describing
limited
prison
contracting
system
massachusetts
pennsylvania
private
prison
lease
agreements
like
inmate
suits
seem
prevalent
enactment
see
generally
mancini
one
dies
get
another
found
evidence
common
law
provided
mistreated
prisoners
prison
leasing
remedies
againstmistreatment
private
lessors
see
dade
coal
haslett
convict
recover
contractor
injuries
sustained
lease
private
company
boswell
barnhart
wife
recover
contractor
chain
gang
related
death
husband
dahlheim
lemon
contractor
liable
convict
injuries
tillar
reynolds
ark
work
farm
owner
liable
inmate
beating
death
weigel
brown
prison
contractor
liable
unlawful
whipping
see
also
edwards
pocahontas
cc
inmate
recover
municipal
corporation
injuries
caused
poor
jail
conditions
hall
turpentine
private
prison
contractor
subcontractor
liable
municipality
escaped
prisoner
lease
agreement
see
generally
mancini
supra
discussing
abuses
century
private
lease
system
yet
found
evidence
law
gave
purely
private
companies
employees
special
immunity
suits
compare
almango
board
supervisors
albany
county
cause
action
private
contractor
contractor
designated
state
instrumentality
statute
case
dissent
rests
argument
williams
adams
mass
without
prove
existence
tradition
moreover
clearly
involve
private
prison
operator
actually
supports
point
suggests
immunity
suit
exist
type
intentional
conduct
issue
case
see
williams
supra
battery
issue
case
different
character
defendant
might
responsible
see
making
clear
case
involves
claim
ordinary
negligence
lack
ofheat
items
gross
negligence
implied
malice
intention
prisoner
bodily
injury
compare
tower
glover
concluding
state
public
defenders
enjoy
immunity
suit
conduct
intentional
history
immunity
intentional
conduct
established
correctional
functions
england
consistently
public
see
generally
encyclopedia
brittanica
prison
ed
webb
webb
english
prisons
local
government
webb
historical
sources
indicate
england
relied
upon
private
jailers
manage
detention
prisoners
middle
ages
well
century
shichor
see
also
webb
coke
institutes
common
law
forbade
jailers
subject
prisoners
pain
torment
whether
harsh
confinement
leg
irons
otherwise
see
birdsong
sd
coke
supra
addison
treatise
law
torts
pp
see
also
geo
ch
twelfth
apparently
authorized
prisoner
lawsuits
recover
damages
addison
supra
apparently
law
provide
kind
immunity
certain
private
defendants
doctors
lawyers
performed
services
behest
sovereign
see
tower
supra
bishop
commentaries
non
contract
law
found
indication
general
immunity
might
applied
private
individuals
working
profit
research
including
sources
parties
cited
reveals
century
earlier
sometimes
private
contractors
sometimes
government
carried
prison
management
activities
found
conclusive
evidence
historical
tradition
immunity
private
partiescarrying
functions
history
therefore
provide
significant
support
immunity
claim
compare
briscoe
lahue
immunity
witnesses
pierson
ray
immunity
judges
police
officers
tenney
brandhove
immunity
legislators
whether
immunity
doctrine
purposes
warrant
immunity
private
prison
guards
presents
closer
question
wyatt
consistent
earlier
precedent
described
doctrine
purposes
protecting
government
ability
perform
traditional
functions
providing
immunity
necessary
preserve
ability
government
officials
serve
public
good
ensure
talented
candidates
deterred
threat
damages
suits
entering
public
service
earlier
precedent
described
immunity
protecting
public
unwarranted
timidity
part
public
officials
example
encouraging
vigorous
exercise
official
authority
butz
economou
contributing
principled
fearless
decision
making
wood
strickland
quoting
pierson
supra
responding
concern
threatened
liability
judge
hand
words
dampen
ardour
resolute
irresponsible
public
officials
harlow
quoting
gregoire
biddle
hand
cert
denied
see
also
mitchell
lawsuits
may
distrac
officials
governmental
duties
guards
argue
purposes
support
immunity
whether
employer
private
public
brief
petitioners
since
private
prison
guards
perform
work
state
prison
guards
say
theymust
require
immunity
similar
degree
say
however
misread
precedents
sometimes
applied
functional
approach
immunity
cases
decide
type
immunity
absolute
qualified
public
officer
receive
see
buckley
fitzsimmons
burns
reed
forrester
white
cleavinger
saxner
harlow
never
held
mere
performance
governmental
function
make
difference
unlimited
liability
qualified
immunity
see
tower
especially
private
person
performs
job
without
government
supervision
direction
indeed
purely
functional
approach
bristles
difficulty
particularly
since
many
areas
government
private
industry
may
engage
fundamentally
similar
activities
ranging
electricity
production
waste
disposal
even
mail
delivery
petitioners
argument
also
overlook
certain
important
differences
immunity
perspective
critical
first
important
special
government
immunity
producing
concern
unwarranted
timidity
less
likely
present
least
special
private
company
subject
competitive
market
pressures
operates
prison
competitive
pressures
mean
firm
whose
guards
aggressive
face
damages
raise
costs
thereby
threatening
replacement
also
firm
whose
guards
timid
face
threats
replacement
firms
records
demonstrate
ability
safer
effective
job
ordinary
marketplace
pressures
present
private
prison
guards
us
work
large
multistate
private
prison
management
firm
thomas
bolinger
badalamenti
private
adultcorrectional
facility
census
ed
listing
corrections
corporation
america
largest
prison
management
concern
firm
systematically
organized
perform
major
administrative
task
profit
cf
code
ann
supp
requiring
firms
contracting
state
demonstrate
history
successful
operation
correctional
facilities
performs
task
independently
relatively
less
ongoing
direct
state
supervision
compare
exempting
private
jails
certain
monitoring
requiring
inspectors
examine
publicly
operated
county
jails
month
requiring
tennessee
correctional
institute
inspect
public
correctional
facilities
annual
basis
report
findings
inspections
must
buy
insurance
sufficient
compensate
victims
civil
rights
torts
since
firm
first
contract
expires
three
years
performance
disciplined
state
review
see
also
pressure
potentially
competing
firms
try
take
place
cf
permitting
state
upon
notice
cancel
contract
time
first
year
operation
see
also
describing
standards
renewal
contract
words
marketplace
pressures
provide
private
firm
strong
incentives
avoid
overly
timid
insufficiently
vigorous
unduly
fearful
non
arduous
employee
job
performance
contract
provisions
including
might
permit
employee
indemnification
avoid
many
civil
service
restrictions
grant
private
firm
freedom
respond
market
pressures
rewards
penalties
operate
directly
upon
employees
see
extent
employees
us
resemble
private
firms
differ
government
employees
say
government
employees
efforts
act
within
constitutional
limits
always
often
sacrifice
otherwise
effective
performance
duties
rather
say
government
employees
typically
act
within
different
system
work
within
system
responsible
elected
officials
voters
vote
rarely
consider
performance
individual
subdepartments
civil
servants
specifically
detail
system
often
characterized
multidepartment
civil
service
rules
providing
employee
security
may
limit
incentives
ability
individual
departments
supervisors
flexibly
reward
punish
individual
employees
hence
judicial
determination
effectiveness
concerns
warrant
special
immunity
type
protection
respect
latter
governmental
system
prove
need
respect
former
consequently
find
special
immunity
related
need
encourage
vigorous
performance
second
privatization
helps
meet
immunity
related
need
ensure
talented
candidates
deterred
threat
damages
suits
entering
public
service
wyatt
see
also
mitchell
supra
citing
harlow
supra
part
comprehensive
insurance
coverage
requirements
mentioned
insurance
increases
likelihood
employee
indemnification
extent
reduces
employment
discouraging
fear
unwarranted
liability
potential
applicants
face
privatization
law
also
frees
private
prison
management
firm
many
civil
service
law
restraints
code
ann
permits
private
firm
unlike
government
department
offset
increased
employee
liability
risk
higher
pay
extra
benefits
respect
second
government
immunity
related
purpose
difficult
find
special
need
immunity
operate
like
private
firms
need
operate
like
typical
government
department
third
lawsuits
may
well
distrac
employees
duties
mitchell
quoting
harlow
risk
distraction
alone
sufficient
grounds
immunity
qualified
immunity
cases
contemplate
complete
elimination
lawsuit
based
distractions
cf
harlow
supra
officials
subject
suit
violations
clearly
established
rights
significant
tennessee
law
reserves
certain
important
discretionary
tasks
related
prison
discipline
parole
good
time
state
officials
code
ann
given
continual
conceded
need
deterring
constitutional
violations
sense
firm
tasks
enormously
different
respect
importance
various
publicly
important
tasks
carried
private
firms
persuaded
threat
distracting
workers
duties
enough
virtually
justify
providing
immunity
moreover
tennessee
decided
extend
sov
ereign
immunity
private
prison
operators
arguably
appreciated
decision
increase
contract
prices
degree
code
ann
understood
anticipated
certain
amount
distraction
close
three
caveats
first
focused
questions
immunity
addressed
whether
defendants
liable
even
though
employed
private
firm
appeals
assumed
decide
liability
district
determine
whether
decision
lugar
edmondson
oil
defendants
actually
acted
color
state
law
second
answered
immunity
question
narrowly
context
arose
context
one
private
firm
systematically
organized
assume
major
lengthy
administrative
task
managing
institution
limited
direct
supervision
government
undertakes
task
profit
potentially
competition
firms
case
involve
private
individual
briefly
associated
government
body
serving
adjunct
government
essential
governmental
activity
acting
close
official
supervision
third
wyatt
explicitly
stated
decide
whether
private
defendants
might
assert
immunity
special
good
faith
defense
said
id
foreclose
possibility
private
defendants
faced
liability
lugar
edmondson
oil
entitled
affirmative
defense
based
good
faith
probable
cause
suits
private
rather
governmental
parties
require
plaintiffs
carry
additional
burdens
wyatt
may
appropriate
balance
struck
permit
correctional
officers
assert
good
faith
defense
rather
qualified
immunity
however
issue
interlocutory
appeal
reasons
judgment
appeals
affirmed
daryll
richardson
john
walker
petitioners
ronnie
lee
mcknight
writ
certiorari
appeals
sixth
circuit
june
justice
scalia
chief
justice
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
procunier
navarette
held
state
prison
officials
including
supervisory
subordinate
officers
entitled
qualified
immunity
suit
brought
today
declares
immunity
unavailable
employees
private
prison
management
firms
perform
duties
state
employed
correctional
officials
exercise
palpable
form
state
police
power
may
sued
acting
color
state
law
holding
supported
neither
common
law
tradition
public
policy
contradicts
settled
practice
determining
immunity
basis
public
function
performed
doctrine
official
immunity
damages
actions
rooted
assumption
statute
abolish
immunities
traditionally
available
common
law
see
buckley
fitzsimmons
agree
therefore
must
look
history
resolve
case
agree
however
petitioners
claim
immunity
defeated
provide
actual
case
antedating
contemporaneous
enactment
immunity
successfully
asserted
private
prison
guard
absence
case
explicit
rejection
immunity
common
law
relies
upon
opinion
observes
private
jailers
existed
century
successfully
sued
prisoners
one
easily
show
government
employed
jailers
successfully
sued
common
law
often
mention
possible
immunity
see
schellenger
civil
liability
sheriff
officer
charged
keeping
jail
prison
death
injury
prisoner
annotating
numerous
cases
sheriffs
held
liable
indeed
far
research
disclosed
may
case
law
support
immunity
private
jailer
context
government
jailer
context
jailer
immunity
case
sort
aware
williams
adams
mass
decided
years
became
law
case
explicitly
acknowledged
issue
jailer
immunity
novel
ibid
appears
conferred
immunity
upon
independent
contractor
truth
tell
procunier
navarette
supra
established
immunity
state
prison
guards
trouble
history
later
immunity
opinions
done
see
burns
reed
tower
glover
simply
set
forth
policy
prescription
stage
jurisprudence
irrational
productive
harmful
policy
consequences
rely
upon
lack
case
support
create
artificial
limitation
upon
scope
doctrine
prison
guard
immunity
based
case
support
say
artificial
limitation
historical
principles
common
law
immunity
based
reflected
jurisprudence
plainly
cover
private
prison
guard
cover
nonprivate
principles
two
immunity
determined
function
status
even
specifically
private
status
disqualifying
ur
cases
clearly
indicate
immunity
analysis
rests
functional
categories
status
defendant
briscoe
lahue
immunity
flows
rank
title
location
within
government
nature
responsibilities
individual
official
cleavinger
saxner
quoting
butz
economou
running
cases
fair
consistency
functional
approach
immunity
questions
approach
examine
nature
functions
particular
official
class
officials
lawfully
entrusted
seek
evaluate
effect
exposure
particular
forms
liability
likelyhave
appropriate
exercise
functions
forrester
white
see
also
buckley
burns
malley
briggs
harlow
fitzgerald
imbler
pachtman
parties
concede
petitioners
perform
prototypically
governmental
function
enforcement
state
imposed
deprivation
liberty
one
gives
rise
qualified
immunity
duty
punishing
criminals
inherent
sovereign
power
may
committed
agencies
selected
purpose
agencies
engaged
duty
stand
far
place
state
exercise
political
authority
act
private
capacity
later
opinion
seeks
establish
policy
reasons
denying
private
prison
guards
immunity
accorded
public
ones
haveindicated
believe
history
judicially
analyzed
policy
governs
matter
even
terms
attempted
policy
distinction
unconvincing
suggests
two
differences
civil
service
prison
guards
employed
private
prison
firms
preclude
special
need
give
latter
immunity
first
says
unwarranted
timidity
part
private
guards
less
likely
concern
since
companies
subject
market
pressures
encourage
effective
performance
duties
private
firm
maintain
proper
level
order
reasons
replaced
another
one
need
qualified
immunity
facilitate
maintenance
order
wrong
several
reasons
first
fanciful
speak
consequences
market
pressures
regime
public
officials
purchaser
people
money
medium
payment
ultimately
one
prison
management
firm
selected
replace
another
prison
management
firm
decision
made
political
official
renew
contract
see
code
ann
supp
government
decision
market
choice
state
officers
turn
strict
reviewing
cost
performance
privately
managed
prisons
publically
managed
ones
chosen
process
come
resemble
market
choice
extent
political
actors
resemblance
extent
political
actors
willing
pay
attention
issue
prison
services
among
many
issues
vying
attention
willing
place
considerations
cost
quality
service
ahead
political
considerations
personal
friendship
political
alliances
state
ownership
contractor
etc
secondly
importantly
however
one
assumes
political
regime
bent
emulating
market
purchase
prison
services
almost
certainly
case
short
mismanagement
severe
provoke
prison
riot
price
discipline
predominating
factor
regime
selection
contractor
contractor
price
must
depend
upon
costs
lawsuits
increase
costs
fearless
maintenance
discipline
increases
lawsuits
incentive
play
discipline
exist
moreover
even
politicians
zeal
market
emulation
budget
cutting
waned
prison
management
contract
renewal
virtually
automatic
cautious
prison
guards
fewer
lawsuits
higher
profits
sum
seems
market
competitive
private
prison
managers
even
greater
need
civil
service
prison
managers
immunity
incentive
discipline
second
distinction
state
private
prisons
privatization
helps
meet
immunity
related
need
ensure
talented
candidates
deterred
threat
damages
suits
entering
public
service
prison
guards
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
privatization
brings
least
brought
case
us
statutory
requirement
insurance
coverage
civil
rights
claims
assertedly
increases
likelihood
ofemployee
indemnification
liberation
many
civil
service
law
restraints
prevent
increased
employee
risk
offset
higher
pay
extra
benefits
ibid
former
civil
rights
liability
insurance
surely
availability
protection
rather
actual
presence
case
hand
decreases
decrease
doubt
need
immunity
protection
otherwise
say
private
prison
management
firm
required
purchase
insurance
entitled
immunity
government
run
prison
system
purchase
insurance
less
entitled
immunity
course
civil
rights
liability
insurance
less
available
public
entities
private
employers
second
factor
liberation
civil
service
limitations
interesting
one
first
simply
philosophical
matter
fascinating
learn
one
prime
justifications
immunity
phenomenon
civil
service
laws
even
exist
enacted
immunity
created
also
philosophical
matter
poetic
justice
poetic
revenge
use
one
principal
economic
benefits
prison
sourcing
namely
avoidance
civil
service
salary
tenure
encrustations
justification
legal
rule
rendering
sourcing
expensive
course
savings
attributable
sourcing
wholly
lost
result
today
holding
transferred
part
public
prisoner
plaintiffs
lawyers
result
american
bar
association
american
federation
government
employees
love
apart
philosophical
fascination
second
factor
subject
objection
first
governments
need
civil
service
salary
encrustations
exempt
prisons
hence
governments
privateprison
employers
need
immunity
one
possible
rationale
denying
immunity
private
prison
guards
worth
discussing
albeit
briefly
theory
implausible
avoids
mentioning
even
though
primary
reason
given
appeals
decision
affirms
mcknight
rees
officers
private
prisons
likely
officers
state
prisons
violate
prisoners
constitutional
rights
work
profit
motive
hence
added
degree
deterrence
needed
keep
officers
line
appeals
offered
evidence
support
bald
assertion
private
prison
guards
operate
different
incentives
state
prison
guards
gave
hint
prison
guards
might
possibly
increase
employers
profits
violating
constitutional
rights
one
think
private
prison
managers
whose
damages
come
pockets
compared
public
prison
managers
whose
damages
come
public
purse
anything
careful
training
employees
avoid
constitutional
infractions
fact
experimented
prison
privatization
commonly
report
overall
caliber
services
provided
prisoners
actually
improved
scope
quality
matters
relating
federal
bureau
prisons
hearing
subcommittee
crime
house
committee
judiciary
concluding
must
observe
since
apparent
reason
neither
history
policy
making
immunity
hinge
upon
distinction
public
private
guards
precise
nature
distinction
must
also
remain
obscure
privityof
contract
separates
two
categories
guards
paid
directly
state
public
prison
guards
immune
paid
prison
management
company
private
prison
guards
immune
rather
employee
versus
independent
contractor
status
even
guards
whose
compensation
paid
directly
state
immune
also
supervised
state
official
perhaps
state
supervision
alone
without
direct
payment
enough
confer
immunity
characterization
alamango
see
supra
suggests
formal
designation
guards
perhaps
guards
employer
state
instrumentality
makes
difference
since
say
see
sense
public
private
distinction
neither
see
precisely
consists
today
decision
says
two
sets
prison
guards
indistinguishable
ultimate
source
authority
prisoners
indistinguishable
powers
possess
prisoners
indistinguishable
duties
owe
towards
prisoners
treated
quite
differently
matter
financial
liability
sure
effect
today
decision
purpose
far
tell
artificially
raise
cost
privatizing
prisons
whether
cause
privatization
prohibitively
expensive
instead
simply
divert
state
funds
saved
spent
additional
prison
services
likely
taxpayers
prisoners
suffer
consequence
neither
precedent
historical
foundations
policies
underlying
support
result
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
williams
held
prisoners
recover
damages
negligence
master
house
correction
official
seems
public
officer
head
private
company
running
prison
example
governing
statute
provided
paid
prisoners
expenses
supporting
employing
event
default
given
action
indebitatus
assumpsit
sum
due
shall
deemed
proper
debt
mass
gen
ch
failed
distribute
prisoners
rations
articles
food
soap
fuel
necessaries
directed
county
commissioner
mayor
aldermen
boston
subject
fine
opinionin
williams
says
master
house
correction
independent
public
officer
relations
confined
therein
deputy
sheriff
parties
writ
committed
serve
cites
alamango
proposition
cause
action
private
contractor
contractor
designated
state
instrumentality
statute
ante
opinion
alamango
however
cite
statutory
designation
supervisors
state
instrumentality
rely
designation
holding
identify
board
supervisors
mere
instrumentality
selected
state
sup
said
prison
management
firm
master
house
corrections
williams
adams
mass
see
supra
one
accept
distinguishing
case
needed
change
outcome
present
suit
thepointless
formality
designating
contractor
state
instrumentality
hardly
rational
resolution
question
us
true
even
successfully
defended
lawsuits
even
lawsuits
insured
thinks
relevant
factor
currently
discussing
private
prison
management
firm
must
buy
insurance
sufficient
compensate
victims
civil
rights
torts
ante
belief
relevance
factor
must
traceable
ultimately
belief
existence
free
lunch
obviously
civil
rights
claims
increase
cost
civil
rights
insurance
increases