therefore reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. To the extent Pollard’s appeal seeks to challenge the district court’s dismissal of GEO from the lawsuit, we affirm the district court’s disposition as to that issue. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED. 1 . Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), is an extraordinary precedent that gives a party harmed by constitutional error a remedy against federal officials in a way that parallels the § 1983 remedy against state actors. See Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254 n. 2, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006). 2 . See Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 401, 117 S.Ct. 2100, 138 L.Ed.2d 540 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 3 . And arguably a third. In Peoples v. CCA
holding that employees of a private prison management firm are not entitled to qualified immunity from suit by prisoners charging a violation of 42 usc  1983 holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that prison guards who are employees of a private prison management firm are not entitled to a qualified immunity from suit brought by prisoners under  1983 recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc  1983 for denial of access to the courts holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983