# Pollard v. the GEO Group, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 10, 2010 · 629 F.3d 843

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438741

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard Lee POLLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Erroneously Sued as Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Dba Taft Correctional Institution; Margaret Minneci; Jonathan E. Akanno; Robert Spack; Bob D. Steifer; Becky Maness, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 10, 2010
- **Citations:** 629 F.3d 843; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25606; 2010 WL 5028447
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Bea, Hug, Paez, Restani, Kozinski, O'Scannlain, Gould, Tallman, Callahan, Ikuta, Smith
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed by Minneci v. Pollard, 181 L. Ed. 2d 606 (2012).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438741

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding under the “public function test” that “the GEO employees act under color of federal law for purposes of Bivens liability”
- reasoning that the power of incarceration was exclusively governmental even if prison management was not
- finding an Eighth Amendment Bivens action where prisoner sues employees of a privately operated federal prison

## Opinion text

Order; Dissent to Order by Judge BEA; Opinion by Judge PAEZ; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge RESTANI.
*845 ORDER
The majority opinion is amended as follows:
1. At slip op. 8168, n.15, [607 F.3d at 597 n. 15], the final sentence of the footnote is amended to read:
2. At slip op. 8177, [607 F.3d at 602], the following sentence is amended to read:
3. At slip op. 8177, [607 F.3d at 602], the paragraph beginning is amended to read:
The dissenting opinion is amended as follows:
At slip op. 8191, [607 F.3d at 611], in the last textual sentence before the Conclusion, the phrase is amended to read:
The amended opinion and amended dissent are filed concurrently with this order.
With those amendments, Judges Hug and Paez voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Restani voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing.
The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED.
Judge Paez voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Hug so recommended. Judge Restani recommended that the petition for rehearing en banc be granted. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration. FED. R. APP. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438741. Public record. Not legal advice.