The post appreciates the fact that Malesko had a case and was valid. In fact, in the response to the question of whether Malesko could have succeeded if it was a private organization, the post is in concurrence that Malesko indeed had a case with a chance of success. However, the post attempts to divert the liability of the correctional facility by asserting that the Malesko did not exhaust the alternative remedies. In addition, the post recognizes the fact that due procedure was not followed and that Malesko needed to have forwarded his complaints to the agency first. Moreover, the post claims that the principle as laid in Bivens case was intended to sue the officers rather than the agency.
I wish to express my disagreement with those assertions. Foremost, it should be appreciated that the spirit of the law need be stronger and more important than the letter. It is the constitutional rights of the prisoner that were infringement upon. One must, therefore, not use the law to seek excuses for an infringement that has already been committed. Secondly, the relation between Malesko and the worker is different and calls for a special application. The worker was working for a private organization that was in turn discharging the functions otherwise discharged by Federal officers. It is, therefore, essential not only to delegate the roles but to equally delegate the liabilities. Finally, the distinction between individual officers and the agencies they work for is thin. The law needed to be liberally interpreted to entertain cases where the agencies bear the burden of their officers. This is because the individual officers are often the service of the agencies during the course of their duties.
Carine’s Forum Post
The post acknowledges the fact that the rights of the prisoner were infringed upon. In addition, the post illustrates the circumstances in which the Biven’s Doctrine can be relied upon. It expressly states that Biven’s Doctrine is relied upon when suing individuals and not when suing the corporates. I concur with the facts and position as enunciated in the post. However, in matters concerning the statute of limitation, the court ought to look at the matters in its entirety. It needs to consider whether the prisoner had all the means necessary to sue within the prescribed time limit.
As much as matters of violation of the constitutional rights of the prisoner are concerned, I do concur with the post’s position that a violation was evident and that the plaintiff needed to have his day in court. The United States of America remains a constitutionalist nation and violation of the constitution should be sufficient grounds for pursuing litigation to its just conclusion. I appreciate the post’s position that suing government employees is often difficult and that the difficulty has been cured through the introduction of the FTCA. The Act is intended for the defense and protection of the rights of individuals against mistreatment amounting to constitutional violations by the Federal Officers. However, it is important for the letter of the law to conform to the spirit of the law. In that regard, the Act need not be limited to protection of infringement of rights by Federal Officers only. It must extent to the protection from private entities and or persons performing public duties.
Correctional Services Corp v Malesko. 00- 860 534- US 61 (Supreme Court of United States of America, November 27, 2001).
Samaha, David. Criminal Law. New York: Cengage Learning, 2010.