Private prisons operate for profit, but when someone is seriously injured or dies inside one, the case may involve much more than ordinary negligence.
Families may be required to prove that the prison violated the person’s constitutional rights. That is often a much higher legal standard than showing that an employee or company was simply careless.
Donald E. Smolen II, managing attorney at Smolen Law, explains:
“Instead of just suing a private prison for negligence, you’ve got to sue them for a civil rights violation, which is a much higher standard to meet. That discourages these private organizations from really making sure that their people are trained properly and comply with the law.”
A private prison is operated by a business rather than directly by the government. However, that business is still performing a government function: incarcerating people.
When private prison employees exercise authority given to them by the state, their conduct may be challenged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This federal law allows a person to bring a civil case when someone acting under government authority violates a right protected by the Constitution or federal law.
That does not mean every injury, medical mistake, staffing failure, or preventable death automatically becomes a successful civil rights case.
The conduct must meet the constitutional standard connected to the particular violation.
Negligence generally means that a person or organization failed to use reasonable care.
For example, negligence could involve:
Those failures may cause devastating harm. But carelessness alone does not always establish a constitutional violation.
In prison medical-care cases, courts commonly examine whether officials showed deliberate indifference to a person’s serious medical needs. The United States Supreme Court established that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs can violate the Eighth Amendment, while ordinary medical negligence does not automatically become a constitutional claim.
Put simply, a family may need to prove more than:
“They made a dangerous mistake.”
They may have to prove:
“They knew about a serious risk and failed to respond appropriately.”
That can be much harder.
Another challenge is proving that the private prison company itself is legally responsible.
In a standard negligence case, a business may sometimes be held responsible for an employee’s conduct committed within the scope of employment.
Civil rights claims can work differently.
Under the legal rule associated with Monell v. Department of Social Services, an organization is not automatically liable under Section 1983 simply because it employed the person who caused the harm. The constitutional violation generally must be connected to the organization’s policy, custom, practice, or failure in areas such as training and supervision.
A family may therefore need evidence showing that the harm was caused by something larger than one employee’s actions.
That could include:
Smolen Law discusses similar systemic failures on its Civil Rights Violations and Prison and Detention Center Abuse pages.
Families frequently begin these cases without access to the most important evidence.
The private prison or government agency may control:
This creates another obstacle. The family may know that something went terribly wrong without yet knowing whether it happened because of an official policy, a staffing decision, poor training, ignored warnings, or a widespread practice inside the facility.
Civil rights attorneys may need to obtain and examine these records to determine whether the incident was isolated or part of a larger institutional failure.
As explained on Smolen Law’s Excessive Force and Police Brutality page, civil rights cases often require a detailed investigation into video evidence, training standards, department policies, supervision, and previous complaints.
Government officials frequently raise qualified immunity as a defense in civil rights cases.
However, the United States Supreme Court held in Richardson v. McKnight that privately employed prison guards working for a private prison management company were not entitled to qualified immunity in the circumstances presented in that case.
That is an important distinction, but it does not make private prison cases easy.
Families may still have to prove:
The exact claims and defenses depend on whether the facility is state, county, federal, or privately operated, as well as the laws that apply in that jurisdiction.
One employee making one mistake may not be enough to establish corporate liability under Section 1983.
But repeated or obvious training failures may tell a different story.
A failure-to-train claim may examine questions such as:
Smolen Law examines training failures, inadequate supervision, constitutional violations, and patterns of misconduct in its civil rights practice. The firm’s Excessive Force page explains that the goal is to determine whether an incident was an isolated event or a preventable failure of leadership.
When a person dies inside a prison or detention center, the family may have more than one possible legal claim.
Depending on the circumstances, the case could involve:
These claims are highly dependent on the facts and jurisdiction. Different filing deadlines, notice requirements, immunity rules, and legal standards may apply.
Families can learn more about cases involving fatal negligence on Smolen Law’s Wrongful Death page.
People in prison cannot simply leave when conditions become unsafe.
They cannot select a different medical provider, hire more correctional officers, change the facility’s policies, or move themselves away from a known threat. They depend on the institution holding them for food, shelter, medical care, supervision, and protection.
When a private company accepts public money to incarcerate people, it also accepts responsibility for human lives.
As Don explains, requiring families to meet a higher constitutional standard can reduce the pressure on private operators to correct inadequate training and other dangerous practices before someone is harmed.
Private profit should never create less accountability.
The government may outsource the operation of a prison, but it cannot outsource the constitutional rights of the people held inside it.
Cases involving prisons and detention centers are complex and evidence-driven. Important records can be lost, overwritten, or difficult to obtain, and strict filing deadlines may apply.
If you believe a loved one was seriously injured, denied medical care, subjected to excessive force, or died because of misconduct inside a prison or detention center, contact Smolen Law to discuss the circumstances.
Learn more about:
The information in this article is provided for general educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its specific facts, jurisdiction, and applicable filing deadlines.
Smolen Law's mission is to provide exceptional legal services with integrity, professionalism, and respect.
Choose the Oklahoma law firm that gets results: Smolen Law.
