Daniel Oriakhi v. GEO Group, Incorporated

579 F. App'x 292

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Oriakhi appeals the district court’s dismissal of his prisoner civil rights suit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Our review is de novo. 1 Oriakhi raises two issues on appeal, both of which concern the dismissal of defendant GEO Group and its employees.

Oriakhi’s complaint was correctly interpreted as alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). A Bivens suit may not be brought against a private corporation like GEO Group 2 or its employees if the conduct is the type that typically falls within the scope of traditional state tort law. 3 Texas tort law encompasses Oriakhi’s claims. 4 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1 .Geiger v. lowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.2005).

4 . See, e.g., Tejada v. Gemale, 363 S.W.3d 699, 701 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Gibson v. Tolbert, 102 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tex.2003).

2 . Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 63, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001).

3 . Minneci v. Pollard, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 617, 626, 181 L.Ed.2d 606 (2012).