Bartlett et al v. Rock Township Ambulance District, et al.

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion to strike Plaintiffs prayer for punitive damages is DENIED. [Doc. #22] re: 22 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Prayer for Punitive Damages filed by Defendant Ron Counts, Defendant Don Wieland, Defendant Curt Tary, Defendant Richard Bowers, Defendant Margie Sammons, Defendant Randy Crisler, Defendant Steve Ott. Signed by Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig on 7/19/11. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SCOTT BARTLETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ROCK TOWNSHIP
AMBULANCE DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10CV02344AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two former employees of the Rock
Township Ambulance District allege that their First Amendment rights were violated
when they were terminated from their employment in retaliation for engaging in protected
speech. They name as Defendants the Ambulance District, the Paramedic Chief of the
District, and six members of the District’s Board of Directors. The seven individual
Defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities. In their First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs seek, along with other relief, punitive damages against the
individual Defendants in their individual capacities only for their “wanton and reckless
disregard for Plaintiffs’ first amendment rights.” Now before the Court is the joint
motion filed by the individual Defendants to strike this request for punitive damages.
Defendants are correct that punitive damages would not be recoverable against the
Ambulance District or against the individual Defendants in their official capacities.
While this point was valid when addressed to Plaintiffs’ original complaint, which sought
punitive damages against all Defendants, the point is now moot, as in the First Amended

Complaint, Plaintiffs clearly limit their request for punitive damages against the
individual Defendants in their individual capacities. “Punitive damages may be assessed
in a § 1983 case when a ‘defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or
intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights
of others.’” Swipies v. Kofka, 419 F.3d 709, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Smith v.
Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983)). “[T]o prove reckless indifference, requires evidence that
the defendant acted in the face of a perceived risk that his or her actions would violate
federal law.” Id. (quoted source omitted). Here, the Court concludes that taking the
allegations in the complaint as true, a jury could impose punitive damages against the
individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer
for punitive damages is DENIED. [Doc. #22]

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of July, 2011.

-2-