WALTON v. HARKLEROAD et al
Filing
176
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Re Final Jury Instructions. The Court's jury instruction regarding compensatory damages will be amended as stated in the Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 10/5/16. (bfm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARCUS WALTON,
Plaintiff,
13cv1109
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
HARKLEROAD, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: FINAL JURY INSTRICTIONS
Defendant Harkleroad has filed Objections to the Court’s Draft Final Jury Instructions
[ECF173]. Specifically, Defendant objects to the Court’s proposed jury instruction regarding
compensatory damages on the basis that because Plaintiff is an inmate plaintiff, “an actual
physical injury is a prerequisite for the award of damages for emotional and mental harm, but the
proposed instruction does not reflect this, giving the jury the impression that they may award
damages for emotional and mental harm apart from whether or not plaintiff proved any actual
physical injury.” Defendant’s Objections to the Court’s Draft Final Jury Instructions, ¶ 3 (citing
Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 533 (3d Cir. 2003) (§1997e(e) of the PLRA “predicates a
prisoner's claim for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody on a showing of
accompanying physical injury.”); Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247, 250-251 (3d. Cir. 2000);
Brooks v. Smith, 2007 WL 3275266, *2 (M.D. Pa.).
Defendant proffers that “[t]he jury
instructions can be corrected by adding the following sentence to the end of the emotional and
mental harm paragraph: ‘However, no compensatory damages may be awarded for emotional or
mental harm unless Plaintiff proves that he suffered physical harm’.” Id. at ¶ 4.
Defendant is correct that as an inmate plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot recover
compensatory damages for emotional or mental harm unless he first proves that he
suffered a physical injury, and the Court’s proposed jury instruction does not reflect this
limitation. ECF 172. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that “[n]o
Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other
correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a
prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). See Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d
523, 533 (3d Cir. 2003) (“Section 1997e(e)'s requirement that a prisoner demonstrate
physical injury before he can recover for mental or emotional injury applies only to
claims for compensatory damages.”); Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247, 250–51 (3d Cir.
2000) (affirming dismissal of prisoner plaintiff’s claims for compensatory damages for
alleged infringements of First Amendment right to free exercise of religion in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis that said claims were barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e);
“[u]nder §1997e(e) . . . in order to bring a claim for mental or emotional injury suffered
while in custody, a prisoner must allege physical injury. . .”); Tate v. Dragovich, 2003
WL 21978141, at *9 (E.D.Pa. 2003) (explaining “Plaintiff was barred from recovering
compensatory damages for his alleged emotional and psychological injuries by
§803(d)(e) of the PLRA, which requires that proof of physical injury precede any
consideration of mental or emotional harm, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (2003), and the jury
was instructed as such.”).
2
Accordingly, the Court’s jury instruction regarding compensatory damages shall
be amended to read:
Compensatory Damages
If you find Defendant liable, then you must consider the issue of compensatory
damages. You must award Plaintiff an amount that will fairly compensate him for
any injury he actually sustained as a result of Defendant’s conduct.
Plaintiff must show that the injury would not have occurred without Defendant’s
acts or omissions. Plaintiff must also show that Defendant’s acts or omissions
played a substantial part in bringing about the injury, and that the injury was
either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of Defendant’s acts or
omissions. There can be more than one cause of an injury. To find that
Defendant’s acts or omissions caused Plaintiff’s injury, you need not find that
Defendant’s acts or omissions were the nearest cause, either in time or space.
However, if Plaintiff’s injury was caused by a later, independent event that
intervened between Defendant’s acts or omissions and Plaintiff’s injury, then
Defendant is not liable unless the injury was reasonably foreseeable by
Defendant.
Compensatory damages must not be based on speculation or sympathy. They
must be based on the evidence presented at trial, and only on that evidence.
Plaintiff has the burden of proving compensatory damages by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Plaintiff claims the following items of damages:
• Physical harm to Plaintiff during and after the events at issue, including ill
health, physical pain, disability, disfigurement, or discomfort, and any such
physical harm that Plaintiff is reasonably certain to experience in the future. In
assessing such harm, you should consider the nature and extent of the injury and
whether the injury is temporary or permanent.
•Emotional and mental harm to Plaintiff during and after the events at issue,
including fear, humiliation, and mental anguish, and any such emotional and
mental harm that Plaintiff is reasonably certain to experience in the future.
Plaintiff cannot, however, recover compensatory damages for emotional and/or
mental harm unless Plaintiff proves that he suffered a physical injury.
3
It is so ORDERED, this 5TH day of October, 2016.
S/Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?