With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". unnecessarily, he maintains, because they knew that he was not among the troublemakers. He filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the corporation (rather than any of the guards), in Wisconsin, a little more than four years later. Although she assumed that Malone’s version of events is correct, the district court dismissed the complaint after screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, concluding that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. (The judge did not consider other potential problems, such as whether the corporation is a state actor amenable to suit under § 1983 given the lack of any allegation that Wisconsin directed or even influenced the events of which Malone complains, cf. Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001) (<HOLDING>), or how the corporation could be held

A: holding that a bivens cause of action cannot be maintained against a federal agency
B: holding no action lies under bivens against a private corporation operating a halfway house under a contract with the bureau of prisons
C: holding that a bivens claim cannot be brought against a federal agency
D: holding that privately operated prisons may not be sued under the bivens doctrine
D.