Prisoners, Punitive Damages, and Precedent, Oh My! the Eleventh Circuit in Hoever Overrules Prior Interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
| Publication year | 2022 |
Prisoners, Punitive Damages, and Precedent, Oh My! The Eleventh Circuit in Hoever Overrules Prior Interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
Tatiana Dobretsova
[Page 1449]
Imagine you are a prisoner at Dooly State Prison in Unadilla, Georgia. A squad of about thirty officers march into the prison one day, dressed in riot gear, chanting, "kill, kill, kill."1 The officers begin cursing and ordering inmates to get out of their cells, even yanking some by their shirts if they are not moving quickly enough.2 As you and the other inmates rush out of your cells, you are subjected to body cavity searches—you are ordered to strip naked, squat and cough, turn
[Page 1450]
around, and bend over, all in the presence of several officers.3 An officer hands you a razor and forces you to dry shave.4 Meanwhile, officers are yelling obscenities, pointing and laughing at you, and threatening you.5 You see inmates' personal items and religious materials dumped on the floor, thrown into toilets, and destroyed.6 You hear an officer yelling at another inmate that if the inmate says anything about this incident, he will be locked up and beaten until he does not "want to be gay anymore."7 Another inmate is ordered to hold his right foot in his left hand, then to switch, and switch again quickly, while officers watch and laugh at him.8
These shocking events did indeed occur at Dooley State Prison on October 23, 1996, and were the premise of Harris v. Garner,9 the Eleventh Circuit's first opinion interpreting section 1997e(e) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.10 When the victims of this harassment sought punitive damages, their claims were barred because they were not able to meet section 1997e(e)'s physical injury requirement.11 Even the victim who was forced to dry shave was deemed unable to meet the physical injury requirement, and denied punitive damages.12
Enacted in 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)13 was designed to curtail meritless and frivolous prisoner claims in federal
[Page 1451]
courts.14 One provision of the PLRA, section 1997e(e), "Limitation on Recovery," is of particular note.15 Until recently, the circuit courts were split in their interpretation of section 1997e(e), disagreeing on whether prisoners could seek punitive damages without showing physical injury.16 The Eleventh Circuit was the last to assert that section 1997e(e) completely barred punitive damages absent physical injury; however, in Hoever v. Marks,17 the Eleventh Circuit joined its sister circuits, holding that section 1997e(e) does not necessarily bar punitive damages without a showing of physical injury.18 Hoever significantly impacts prisoners and correctional officers in the Eleventh Circuit and, moving forward, will enable inmates to seek punitive damages without a showing of physical injury.
The events leading up to Hoever started in 2013, when Conraad Hoever was incarcerated at the Franklin Correctional Institution in Carrabelle, Florida.19 In September 2013, proceeding pro se, Hoever
[Page 1452]
brought a 42 U.S.C. § 198320 action against four correctional officers, alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated, and that he was a victim of harassment and threats of physical violence.21 Hoever's complaint alleged that throughout the summer of 2013, in retaliation for filing grievances and to discourage him from filing more grievances, several correctional officers harassed and threatened him with physical violence and death.22
The complaint alleged that on June 6, 2013, a correctional officer threatened Hoever and other inmates with confinement or chemical agents if they said anything improper against the officers.23 Hoever claimed that on June 20, he was threatened by two officers, one of whom stated: "If you keep on writing grievances, I promise you the next 11 years is [sic] going to be a heartache for you. You need to stop writing grievances right now or we'll make sure that you stop."24 The complaint also alleged that on July 20, another correctional officer told Hoever never to write a grievance again, then threatened to starve Hoever and spray him with chemicals every day if he continued to file
[Page 1453]
grievances.25 Allegedly, the officer warned Hoever that his next grievance would be a "death sentence"—that the officer was part of a prison gang and that the officer would have other inmates who worked for the gang help kill Hoever.26 Despite these threats, Hoever wrote another grievance to exhaust his remedies under the PLRA, which was forwarded to the inspector's office, marking the start of his legal battle for retribution.27
Hoever's complaint alleged claims for violations of his rights under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.28 He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.29 The district court dismissed Hoever's due process claim, the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and claims against the officers in their official capacities.30 Further, the district court dismissed Hoever's claims for punitive and compensatory damages as barred by the PLRA, noting that while the PLRA permits nominal damages if the violation of a constitutional right is established, it "prohibit[s] a prisoner from bringing a federal civil action 'for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.'"31 As Hoever did not sufficiently allege any physical injury connected with his First Amendment claims, only his claim for nominal damages for First Amendment violations proceeded to trial.32
During a three-day trial, the jury heard testimony about an occasion in which an officer threatened, "'[w]e've been killing inmates here for a long time and nobody can do a damn thing to us,' and a threat to 'take Hoever to confinement and starve him to death' if he filed additional grievances."33 The jury found that Hoever's First Amendment rights were violated and awarded Hoever one dollar in nominal damages.34 Yes, one dollar.35 The officers appealed the judgment and Hoever cross-appealed, challenging the dismissal of his punitive damages claim.36 The panel for Hoever's case followed Eleventh Circuit precedent
[Page 1454]
that interpreted the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e),37 as barring punitive damages absent a showing of physical injury; however, the Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc to reconsider whether section 1997e(e) indeed bars punitive damages absent physical injury.38 Ultimately, joining the rest of its sister circuits,39 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the PLRA permits claims for punitive damages absent a showing of physical injury, reversed the district court's dismissal of Hoever's First Amendment punitive damages claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.40
[Page 1455]
A. The Prison Litigation Reform Act
Until the 1960s, mostly due to the "hands-off doctrine," it was unclear whether prisoners had any constitutional rights.41 Under the "hands-off doctrine," judges abstained from considering what rights prisoners had, as it was "not the function of the courts to superintend the treatment and discipline of prisoners in penitentiaries, but only to deliver from imprisonment those who [were] illegally confined."42 However, in the 1960s, prisoners' rights law developed as numerous lower court cases addressed prisoner petitions.43 Then, in 1974, the United States Supreme Court validated prisoners' rights, proclaiming that, "[t]here is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country."44 Further, the Supreme Court announced that "[w]hen a prison regulation or practice offends a fundamental constitutional guarantee, federal courts will discharge their duty to protect constitutional rights."45
By the 1990s, the number of prisoner suits had increased considerably. Notably, this "explosion" of prisoners suing has been argued to be a "half-truth": there may have been an increase in the absolute number of filings by prisoners, but the increase was possibly due to the rapid growth in prison population.46 Further, the rate of filings per 1000 inmates actually decreased 17% between 1980 and 1996.47 Nonetheless, there were growing concerns regarding the overall rise in prisoner lawsuits—Congress found that the number of complaints filed by prisoners had increased from 6,600 in 1975 to more
[Page 1456]
than 39,000 in 1994.48 Reports showed that in 1995 over 25% of civil cases filed in district courts were brought by prisoners.49 Thus, as an effort to address this "rise" in prisoner lawsuits and to curtail the increase of prisoner litigation in federal courts, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996.50
The PLRA contains several provisions designed to reduce the quantity of prisoner suits, including: a requirement to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a section 1983 civil rights lawsuit;51 a restriction on attorney's fees;52 and a requirement for courts to weed out meritless claims.53 Among these provisions is section 1997e(e), which provides: "No 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."54 This section, in particular, has caused a circuit split and is the subject of Hoever v. Marks.
B. Eleventh Circuit's Prior Interpretation of the PLRA
In 1999, the Eleventh Circuit published its first opinion interpreting section 1997e(e), Harris v. Garner, holding that section 1997e(e) barred punitive damages without a showing of physical injury.55 The details of Harris, recounted with specificity in the Introduction, were harrowing...
To continue reading
Request your trial