×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Retaliation Verdict Remanded for Damages
The court of appeals for the Eighth circuit held that a district court abused its discretion when it only awarded nominal damages to a prisoner who won a grievance retaliation claim against a jail guard. The court also notes cases on damage awards for wrongful segregation claims that will be useful to anyone successfully litigating claims involving illegal segregation.
Charles Trobaugh was a detainee in the Linn County Correctional Center in Iowa. Trobaugh filed a grievance against jail guard Harvey Hall to protest Hall transporting him to court early. Hall denied Trobaugh's grievance. Trobaugh filed a second grievance to appeal Hall's previous decision. Hall denied this grievance as well. Trobaugh then filed a third grievance to protest the lack of an appeal process and Hall denied this grievance too. The next day, two guards awoke Trobaugh at 12:30 AM and took him to an isolation cell. Hall visited Trobaugh and told him he was being placed in administrative segregation for filing repeat grievances. Trobaugh spent three days in ad-seg and didn't file anymore grievances.
Trobaugh filed suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the time he spent in segregation. Hall admitted liability and conceded his conduct violated Trobaugh's First amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. The case went to trial before a judge solely on the issue of damages and the district court awarded Trobaugh one dollar in nominal damages for Hall's unconstitutional conduct. The court of appeals reversed and remanded in part. The court affirmed the dismissal of a supervisor from the suit, holding Trobaugh had not shown the supervisor was involved in Hall's illegal conduct.
Damage awards in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits are reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. "We conclude the district court abused its discretion by awarding only $1 in damages for Hall's violation of Trobaugh's First amendment rights .... in our opinion, the $1 compensatory damage award was patently insufficient to compensate Trobaugh for the injury he suffered by being placed in segregation in retaliation for exercising a constitutional right. See: Simmons v. Cook, 154 F.3d 805, 809 (8th Cir. 1998) (upholding $2,000 damage award for paraplegic inmates placed in solitary confinement for 32 hours); Stevens v. McHan, 3 F.3d 1204, 1207 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing cases suggesting appropriate damage range for unconstitutional segregation is between $25 and $129 per day). Therefore, we reverse the district court's $1 award and remand so that the court may award damages of an appropriate amount, which we believe would be in the vicinity of $100 per day for each of the three days Trobaugh spent in administrative segregation...."
The court also instructed the district court, on remand, to reconsider awarding Trobaugh punitive damages against Hall. "The undisputed evidence showed that Hall deliberately punished Trobaugh for exercising his First amendment right to submit grievances and successfully intimidated Trobaugh from filing further grievances. This conduct amounts to reckless or callous indifference to Trobaugh's First amendment right to submit grievances, and may call for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by a compensatory award ...." The court noted these instructions were in the context of the compensatory damage award being insufficient. Trobaugh litigated the case and appeal pro se. See: Trobaugh v. Hall, 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999).
Charles Trobaugh was a detainee in the Linn County Correctional Center in Iowa. Trobaugh filed a grievance against jail guard Harvey Hall to protest Hall transporting him to court early. Hall denied Trobaugh's grievance. Trobaugh filed a second grievance to appeal Hall's previous decision. Hall denied this grievance as well. Trobaugh then filed a third grievance to protest the lack of an appeal process and Hall denied this grievance too. The next day, two guards awoke Trobaugh at 12:30 AM and took him to an isolation cell. Hall visited Trobaugh and told him he was being placed in administrative segregation for filing repeat grievances. Trobaugh spent three days in ad-seg and didn't file anymore grievances.
Trobaugh filed suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the time he spent in segregation. Hall admitted liability and conceded his conduct violated Trobaugh's First amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. The case went to trial before a judge solely on the issue of damages and the district court awarded Trobaugh one dollar in nominal damages for Hall's unconstitutional conduct. The court of appeals reversed and remanded in part. The court affirmed the dismissal of a supervisor from the suit, holding Trobaugh had not shown the supervisor was involved in Hall's illegal conduct.
Damage awards in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits are reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. "We conclude the district court abused its discretion by awarding only $1 in damages for Hall's violation of Trobaugh's First amendment rights .... in our opinion, the $1 compensatory damage award was patently insufficient to compensate Trobaugh for the injury he suffered by being placed in segregation in retaliation for exercising a constitutional right. See: Simmons v. Cook, 154 F.3d 805, 809 (8th Cir. 1998) (upholding $2,000 damage award for paraplegic inmates placed in solitary confinement for 32 hours); Stevens v. McHan, 3 F.3d 1204, 1207 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing cases suggesting appropriate damage range for unconstitutional segregation is between $25 and $129 per day). Therefore, we reverse the district court's $1 award and remand so that the court may award damages of an appropriate amount, which we believe would be in the vicinity of $100 per day for each of the three days Trobaugh spent in administrative segregation...."
The court also instructed the district court, on remand, to reconsider awarding Trobaugh punitive damages against Hall. "The undisputed evidence showed that Hall deliberately punished Trobaugh for exercising his First amendment right to submit grievances and successfully intimidated Trobaugh from filing further grievances. This conduct amounts to reckless or callous indifference to Trobaugh's First amendment right to submit grievances, and may call for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by a compensatory award ...." The court noted these instructions were in the context of the compensatory damage award being insufficient. Trobaugh litigated the case and appeal pro se. See: Trobaugh v. Hall, 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Trobaugh v. Hall
| Year | 1999 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Trobaugh v. Hall, 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 05/13/1999)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 98-4031NI
[4] May 13, 1999
[5] CHARLES A. TROBAUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
SERGEANT HALL, SUED AS SARGEANT HALL, LINN CO. DEPUTY; MICHAEL CARR, SUED AS MR. CARR, JAIL ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLEES.
[6] Before Wollman, Chief Judge, Richard S. Arnold and Beam, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard S. Arnold, Circuit Judge.
[8] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
[9] Submitted: April 5, 1999
[10] Charles A. Trobaugh appeals the District Court's order, awarding $1 nominal damages against Linn County, Iowa, Deputy Harvey Hall and granting summary judgment to Linn County Correctional Center (LCCC) Administrator Michael Carr, in Trobaugh's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand in part, and affirm in part.
[11] While detained at LCCC, Trobaugh filed a grievance to contest Hall's transporting him to court early; Hall denied Trobaugh's grievance. Trobaugh filed a second grievance, seeking to appeal Hall's decision; Hall responded and denied this grievance as well. Trobaugh filed a third grievance to contest the apparent lack of an appeal process; Hall also denied this grievance. The next day, two LCCC deputies awakened Trobaugh at 12: 30 a. m. and escorted him to an isolation cell. Hall soon visited Trobaugh, informed him that he had been placed in administrative segregation for filing repeat grievances, and stated that Carr would be told why Trobaugh was in segregation. Trobaugh remained in segregation for three days; he did not file subsequent grievances because he feared further retaliation. Trobaugh requested compensatory and punitive damages, as well as damages for emotional pain and suffering and for time spent in segregation. Hall conceded that his conduct violated Trobaugh's First Amendment right to petition for the redress of grievances. Carr denied liability and moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment to Carr, finding insufficient evidence of Carr's involvement in Trobaugh's segregation, and after a trial on the issue of damages, awarded $1 in nominal damages to Trobaugh for Hall's unconstitutional conduct.
[12] We review a District Court's damage award in a section 1983 action for abuse of discretion, and if the award is arbitrary, we will remand for recalculation. See Stevens v. McHan, 3 F.3d 1204, 1207 (8th Cir. 1993). We conclude the District Court abused its discretion by awarding only $1 in damages for Hall's violation of Trobaugh's First Amendment rights. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). In our opinion, the $1 compensatory damage award was patently insufficient to compensate Trobaugh for the injury he suffered by being placed in segregation in retaliation for exercising a constitutional right. See Simmons v. Cook, 154 F.3d 805, 809 (8th Cir. 1998) (upholding $2,000 damage award for paraplegic inmates placed in solitary confinement for thirty-two hours); Stevens, 3 F.3d at 1207 (citing cases suggesting appropriate damage range for unconstitutional segregation is between $25 and $129 per day). Therefore, we reverse the District Court's $1 award and remand so that the Court may award damages of an appropriate amount, which we believe would be in the vicinity of $100 per day for each of the three days Trobaugh spent in administrative segregation. See Maxwell v. Mason, 668 F.2d 361, 365-66 (8th Cir. 1981) (compensatory damages of $100 per day of solitary confinement not excessive or arbitrary).
[13] Further, we ask the District Court to reconsider awarding punitive damages against Hall. The undisputed evidence showed that Hall deliberately punished Trobaugh for exercising his First Amendment right to submit grievances and successfully intimidated Trobaugh from filing further grievances. This conduct amounted to reckless or callous indifference to Trobaugh's First Amendment right to submit grievances, and may call for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by a compensatory award. See Williams v. Brimeyer, 116 F.3d 351, 352-355 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendants who unconstitutionally denied inmate incoming mail were callously indifferent to inmate's First Amendment rights and $1,000 punitive damage award was appropriate); Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 787 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard for awarding punitive damages). The issue of punitive damages should be reconsidered in light of our holding that the amount of compensatory damages awarded was insufficient.
[14] On de novo review of the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Carr, see Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1074 (8th Cir. 1996), we affirm. Trobaugh's evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue as to Carr's actual knowledge of and deliberate indifference to Trobaugh's unconstitutional placement in administrative segregation. See McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 435 (8th Cir. 1993).
[15] Accordingly, we reverse and remand in part, and affirm in part. We deny Trobaugh's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal.
[16] A true copy.
[17] Attest:
[18] CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 98-4031NI
[4] May 13, 1999
[5] CHARLES A. TROBAUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
SERGEANT HALL, SUED AS SARGEANT HALL, LINN CO. DEPUTY; MICHAEL CARR, SUED AS MR. CARR, JAIL ADMINISTRATOR, APPELLEES.
[6] Before Wollman, Chief Judge, Richard S. Arnold and Beam, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard S. Arnold, Circuit Judge.
[8] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
[9] Submitted: April 5, 1999
[10] Charles A. Trobaugh appeals the District Court's order, awarding $1 nominal damages against Linn County, Iowa, Deputy Harvey Hall and granting summary judgment to Linn County Correctional Center (LCCC) Administrator Michael Carr, in Trobaugh's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand in part, and affirm in part.
[11] While detained at LCCC, Trobaugh filed a grievance to contest Hall's transporting him to court early; Hall denied Trobaugh's grievance. Trobaugh filed a second grievance, seeking to appeal Hall's decision; Hall responded and denied this grievance as well. Trobaugh filed a third grievance to contest the apparent lack of an appeal process; Hall also denied this grievance. The next day, two LCCC deputies awakened Trobaugh at 12: 30 a. m. and escorted him to an isolation cell. Hall soon visited Trobaugh, informed him that he had been placed in administrative segregation for filing repeat grievances, and stated that Carr would be told why Trobaugh was in segregation. Trobaugh remained in segregation for three days; he did not file subsequent grievances because he feared further retaliation. Trobaugh requested compensatory and punitive damages, as well as damages for emotional pain and suffering and for time spent in segregation. Hall conceded that his conduct violated Trobaugh's First Amendment right to petition for the redress of grievances. Carr denied liability and moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment to Carr, finding insufficient evidence of Carr's involvement in Trobaugh's segregation, and after a trial on the issue of damages, awarded $1 in nominal damages to Trobaugh for Hall's unconstitutional conduct.
[12] We review a District Court's damage award in a section 1983 action for abuse of discretion, and if the award is arbitrary, we will remand for recalculation. See Stevens v. McHan, 3 F.3d 1204, 1207 (8th Cir. 1993). We conclude the District Court abused its discretion by awarding only $1 in damages for Hall's violation of Trobaugh's First Amendment rights. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). In our opinion, the $1 compensatory damage award was patently insufficient to compensate Trobaugh for the injury he suffered by being placed in segregation in retaliation for exercising a constitutional right. See Simmons v. Cook, 154 F.3d 805, 809 (8th Cir. 1998) (upholding $2,000 damage award for paraplegic inmates placed in solitary confinement for thirty-two hours); Stevens, 3 F.3d at 1207 (citing cases suggesting appropriate damage range for unconstitutional segregation is between $25 and $129 per day). Therefore, we reverse the District Court's $1 award and remand so that the Court may award damages of an appropriate amount, which we believe would be in the vicinity of $100 per day for each of the three days Trobaugh spent in administrative segregation. See Maxwell v. Mason, 668 F.2d 361, 365-66 (8th Cir. 1981) (compensatory damages of $100 per day of solitary confinement not excessive or arbitrary).
[13] Further, we ask the District Court to reconsider awarding punitive damages against Hall. The undisputed evidence showed that Hall deliberately punished Trobaugh for exercising his First Amendment right to submit grievances and successfully intimidated Trobaugh from filing further grievances. This conduct amounted to reckless or callous indifference to Trobaugh's First Amendment right to submit grievances, and may call for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by a compensatory award. See Williams v. Brimeyer, 116 F.3d 351, 352-355 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendants who unconstitutionally denied inmate incoming mail were callously indifferent to inmate's First Amendment rights and $1,000 punitive damage award was appropriate); Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 787 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard for awarding punitive damages). The issue of punitive damages should be reconsidered in light of our holding that the amount of compensatory damages awarded was insufficient.
[14] On de novo review of the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Carr, see Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1074 (8th Cir. 1996), we affirm. Trobaugh's evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue as to Carr's actual knowledge of and deliberate indifference to Trobaugh's unconstitutional placement in administrative segregation. See McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 435 (8th Cir. 1993).
[15] Accordingly, we reverse and remand in part, and affirm in part. We deny Trobaugh's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal.
[16] A true copy.
[17] Attest:
[18] CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.