Richardson v. McKnight. What Does the Future of Qualified Immunity Hold for Nongovernmental Employees?

Abstract

Independent contractors arc playing an increasingly important role in the provision of services once supplied by government. However, the standards by which actions of independent contractors arc judged is not a settled issue. Are independent contractors acting as an arm of government, subject to the same high standards of behavior and protected at the same time from lawsuit through qualified immunity? Or are independent contractors functioning in a manner that removes them from the sphere of government activity, eliminating both the application of a higher standard of behavior and the protection given by qualified immunity? These questions arc being addressed by the judiciary. In a previous column I reviewed cases that addressed the free speech rights of independent contractors (Koenig, 1997). In this column, I review Richardson v. McKnight 117 S.Ct. 2100 (1997), the recent case that assesses the legal defenses to suit available to the guards of a privately run prison that contracted with the state of Tennessee to provide prison services. Richardson v. McKnight, 117 S.Ct. 2100 (1997) McKnight is a prisoner in Tennessee's South Central Correctional Center, a facility run by Corrections Corporation of America. The South Central Correctional Center is apparently a completely privatized facility, employing prison personnel outside the state employment system. McKnight brought federal constitutional tort action against two guards, Daryl Richardson and John Walker, claiming that the guards had placed him in extremely tight physical restraints (Richardson v. McKnight, 2102) that deprived him of a constitutionally protected right. The prison guards sought to have the case against them dismissed, claiming that they were protected by qualified immunity because of their position. The district court denied the existence of qualified immunity due to the fact that the guards were employed by a private company rather than the state. The court of appeals affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. The majority's analysis rested in part on the case of Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992), which assessed whether private defendants who had been charged with a violation of constitutional rights were entitled to assert qualified immunity from suit. The most salient points of the Wyatt decision for the purpose of the majority in Richardson v. McKnight included the following (1) constitutional tort actions are used to prevent governmental actors from using the power of government to harm citizens; (2) there are differences between qualified immunity and other defenses; and (3) qualified immunity is a protection against suit that arises out of history and public policy concerns. Finally, the majority noted that Wyatt does not answer all questions about the assertion of qualified Immunity by private citizens, leaving open die question raised in Richardson: Can privately employed prison guards, working in a detention facility that houses prisoners of the state, assert qualified immunity from the prosecution of a constitutional tort claim made by a prisoner? As noted earlier, the majority's decision rested on an analysis of both history and public policy concerns. The majority noted that there is no history of granting immunity to privately employed prison guards. Indeed, the majority found evidence that the opposite is true. The majority cited the public policy reasons for granting qualified immunity from suit as protecting the public from unwarranted timidity on the part of public by, for example, `encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority [by contributing to] principled and fearless decision-making' and by responding to the concern that threatened liability would...`dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible'... public officials (Richardson v. …