AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Prison Litigation Reform Act: Mental Injury
Monthly Law Journal Article: Recovery of Mental/Emotional Distress Damages Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 2018 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
A federal appeals court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) “gatekeeper function” against frivolous suits does not require a prison inmate to make a showing of a physical injury caused by an unconstitutional act. Rather, on Eighth Amendment claims, in order to recover compensatory damages, the PLRA requires a showing of some harm caused by some unconstitutional conduct that amounted to deliberate indifference and an accompanying showing of physical injury. In this prisoner inadequate medical care case, the plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment awarding him only nominal and no punitive damages. The trial court held that defendants violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while he was in their custody, but that the PLRA precluded plaintiff's recovery of compensatory damages because he failed to meet 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e)'s physical injury threshold. The federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiff's severe pain resulted from an actual physical injury when an officer's takedown move broke his shoulder, and thus he met the PLRA's physical injury requirement under section 1997e(e). Therefore, the appeals court reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to calculate compensatory damages that result from the pain differential, if any, that plaintiff experienced from having to take non-prescription pain relievers instead of the ten prescribed hydrocodone tablets. The trial court did not, however, abuse its discretion by denying punitive damages. McAdoo v. Martin, #17-1952, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 21876 (8th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee failed to
show that a police detective, by disclosing to other prisoners his role as a
state witness in a murder prosecution, caused him to suffer an assault. At the same
time, the appeals court ordered further proceedings on the prisoner's claim for
emotional and mental damages from the fear he suffered because of the
detective's disclosure to the other prisoners, which was allegedly done when he
declined to be interviewed about an unrelated matter. This claim was not barred
by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), which prohibits the awarding of damages for
mental or emotional distress without a showing of prior physical injury, the
court ruled, as the prisoner could still be awarded nominal or punitive damages
for the violation of his constitutional rights. Harris v. Matthews, #10-1405,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6386 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner could pursue his
privacy claim based on a medical provider's alleged policy or custom of making
him receive his insulin shots in the waiting room of the prison medical
department. The prisoner claimed that this damaged his reputation and that
other inmates shunned him on the assumption that he had either Hepatitis C or
was HIV-positive. The prisoner could not, however, seek compensatory damages
for his emotional distress when he did not suffer any physical injuries, on the
basis of the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(c). Betrand v. Department of Corrections, No. 4:CV-07-859, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 28599 (M.D. Pa.).
Trial court acted erroneously in dismissing the
entirety of a Texas prisoner's lawsuit alleging that his rights were violated
during a strip and cavity search conducted by an officer. The male prisoner
claimed that the search took place within the view of a female prison guard and
other prisoners, and that, during the search, the officer never accused him of
possession of contraband. If these allegations were true, his Fourth Amendment
rights would have been violated. The prisoner was barred from recovering
compensatory damages for emotional or mental injuries under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(e) because he did not claim he had suffered any physical injury, but this
would not bar him from recovering punitive or nominal damages. Hutchins v.
McDaniels, No. 06-41733, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29755 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner who claimed that he was subjected to an
order to strip in a public hallway, a strip search, and a disciplinary
proceeding, all as part of a campaign of harassment in retaliation for his
exercise of his right of access to the courts could not recover compensatory
damages when he failed to allege a physical injury as required under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e(e). His vague claim on appeal that he suffered a wrist injury
through unspecified events at some unspecified time was inadequate to alter the
result. Further, the prisoner failed to show a constitutional violation as
there were no facts showing an intent to retaliate for the exercise of his
First Amendment rights. Samford v. Staples, No. 06-20717, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
26851 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner's injuries from correctional officers'
alleged excessive force against him--including minor abrasions on a knee, a
small scratch on his chin, and two minor bumps, were insufficient under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e) to constitute physical injury under a provision of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act barring recovery of damages for mental or
emotional injuries in the absence of physical injuries. The plaintiff was also
not entitled to punitive damages since he did not show that the defendants had
the required state of mind to justify such an award. Since the prisoner had not
even asked for nominal damages, the defendants were entitled to summary
judgment. Glosson v. Morales, No. 05-CV-707, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1603 (S.D.
Cal.). [N/R]
Prisoner's failure, in suing over alleged prison
overcrowding, understaffing, and "oppressive cell conditions," to
allege physical injuries did not entirely bar his claims under Prison
Litigation Reform Act, but rather, merely limited remedies available. Federal
appeals court overturns dismissal of lawsuit. Myron v. Terhune, No. 04-15770,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20404 (9th Cir.).[2006 JP Oct]
Female prisoner's claim that delayed labor,
caused by improper medical care, caused the stillbirth of her viable fetus was
sufficient to constitute a "physical injury" to her satisfying the
physical injury requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e). That statutory provision, barring the pursuit of a
federal civil rights claim for mental distress unaccompanied by physical
injury, did not bar the prisoner's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in
these circumstances. Clifton v. Eubank, No. 00-CV-2555, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1243
(D. Colo. 2006). [N/R]
If a prison chaplain intentionally left a
prisoner's name off of a list of those allowed to attend Native American
religious ceremonies, he would have violated the prisoner's rights under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec.
2000cc. Additionally, punitive damages could be awarded if, as the prisoner
asserted, the chaplain threatened to prevent him from attending such services
if he continued to threaten to institute litigation. An award of compensatory
damages, however, was barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act's, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e(e), prohibition on the award of compensatory damages for mental or
emotional injuries in the absence of a showing of physical injuries. Meyer v.
Teslik, No. 05-C-269, 411 F. Supp. 2d 983 (W.D. Wis. 2006). [N/R]
A prisoner was barred, under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(e), from pursuing claims for mental injuries or stress when he failed to
assert that he had suffered any physical injury. His assertion that an officer
"yelled" at him, and that officers came to his cell with stun guns
and pepper mace, asking him to come out of his cell, as well as writing conduct
reports against him when he was facing criminal charges and hernia surgery was
insufficient, since verbal abuse and harassment does not establish a civil
rights violation. Shorter v. Lawson, No. 3:05-CV-0458, 403 F. Supp. 2d 703
(N.D. Ind. 2005). [N/R]
Muslim inmate could proceed with his claim that
he suffered severe emotional and psychological injuries from the alleged denial
of "Halal" meals required by his religion. His claims were not barred
by the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(e) requiring that he show a physical injury before being able to recover
damages for mental and emotional injuries because his alleged loss of 30 pounds
of weight while eating vegetarian meals which he asserted lacked adequate
was sufficient to show a physical injury. Further, his lawsuit was not rendered
moot because of his transfer to another facility when it was run by the same
private company as operates the first facility. Pratt v. Corrections
Corporation of America, No. 04-2413, 124 Fed. Appx. 465 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim for alleged mental anguish and
emotional distress arising out of a dispute with correctional officials over
the alleged retaliatory withholding of two pornographic magazines by the prison
mail personnel could not be pursued, in the absence of physical injury under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e). He claimed that the
retaliation occurred because he filed a previously lawsuit against prison
employees. Geiger v. Jowers, No. 04-10299, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner who claimed that prison guards violated
his constitutional rights by confiscating his legal work at gunpoint could not
pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for any
mental or emotional injuries resulting from the alleged seizure in the absence
of any claimed physical injury, pursuant to the provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, prohibiting claims for mental injury without physical
injury, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Taylor v. Milton, No. 04-60569, 124 Fed. Appx.
248 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
A prisoner's First Amendment claims are not
excluded from the requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e(e) prohibiting claims for mental or emotional injury in the absence
of a showing of physical injury. That rule, however, while barring the
plaintiff's claims for emotion or mental injury from alleged retaliation in
violation of his First Amendment rights did not bar claims for nominal,
compensatory, and punitive damages for the violation of his rights. Meade v.
Plummer, No. 99-CV-10011, 344 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
While prisoner successfully proved that prison
security director improperly put him in segregation in retaliation for filing
"too many" complaints and grievances, in violation of his First Amendment
rights, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, he was not entitled to an award
of compensatory damages in the absence of physical injury, but only $1 in
nominal damages. Appeals court also upholds the decision not to award punitive
damages, since the defendant acted out of "frustration," rather than
with an "evil motive," and upholds application of PLRA section to
limit attorneys' fee award in the case to $1.50. Royal v. Kautzky, No. 02-3446,
375 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Louisiana state statute prohibiting prisoner from
seeking damages for mental injury without a showing of physical injury only
applies to claims arising after it was enacted. A retroactive application to
the plaintiff prisoner's claim against sheriff for unsanitary conditions in
disciplinary cells would violate due process, as the prisoner had a vested
right to assert the claim not impacted by the statute. Bourgeois v. Wiley,
#2002 CA1420, 849 So. 2d 632 (La. App. 2003). [N/R]
Two prisoners, confined for 24 hours in an
"unsanitary" isolation cell designed for one prisoner in which a
clogged floor drain resulted in feces and urine remaining on the cell floor,
could not recover damages for mental or emotional injuries in the absence of a
prior physical injury. Alexander v. Tippah County, Mississippi, No. 02-61033,
351 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Mar]
Strip search of male prisoner in the presence of
female correctional officers could constitute cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment if female officers were, as prisoner alleged,
"invited spectators" and the search was carried out in a manner
designed to humiliate and demean him. Federal appeals court rules that
provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act barring claims for mental or
emotional injuries without a showing of physical injury did not apply, in this
case, to bar claims for nominal or punitive damages. Calhoun v. Detella,
#98-2894, 319 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Prisoner could not pursue a federal civil rights
claim against correctional officials for failure to protect him against other
inmates who allegedly threatened him with harm because his crime involved a
child when he could not show that he suffered physical harm as a result of the
alleged failure to protect. A provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e) prohibits recovery for mental or emotional injury suffered
in custody without a prior showing of physical injury. Wolff v. Hood, 242 F.
Supp. 2d 811 (D. Ore. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner could not pursue his claim for damages
for emotional injuries caused by officer ordering him to be strip-searched in
the presence of female correctional officers in the absence of any physical
injury. Provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibiting such recovery
applied to incident which occurred in a private correctional facility providing
services under a contract with the state. Milledge v. McCall, #01-1417, 43 Fed.
Appx. 196 (10th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Dec]
Federal appeals court rejects plaintiff
prisoner's argument that "any" physical injury is sufficient to
support a claim for mental or emotional distress under the provisions of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, and also rejects the argument of defendant
correctional officials that an "observable or diagnosable medical
condition requiring treatment by a medical care professional" was
required. Plaintiff prisoner must, court rules, show more than minimal physical
injury. Oliver v. Keller, #00-15849, 289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002
JB Aug]
In federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that
correctional officers assaulted inmates and family members during a visit to
the jail, any claim for psychiatric conditions requiring medical treatment was
waived by an attorney's letter indicating that such claims would be withdrawn
with prejudice, but the letter did not waive any claims, on behalf of the
family members, for injuries to reputation, humiliation, or embarrassment
arising out of the incident. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e(e, h), a county jail prisoner who was in custody at the time of the
alleged incident could not recover damages for emotional distress after his
attorney waived any claim he had for physical injuries. Jessamy v. Ehren, 153
F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Without an allegation of physical injury, the
Prison Litigation Reform Act barred an inmate from recovering damages from
severe stress and depression due to officers' alleged spreading of rumors that
he was gay, a child molester, and a "rapist," or from psychological
pain from officers' attempt to provoke a physical confrontation between other
prisoners and him. Prisoner's claim that officer "squeezed" his
genitals during a pat down also did not state an Eighth Amendment claim.
Montero v. Crusie, 153 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [2002 JB Apr]
Policy of county jail which subjected all
incoming prisoners to strip searches and delousing procedure without any
suspicion of possession of contraband or weapons was unreasonable and county
jail officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. Provision of Prison
Litigation Reform Act prohibiting awards for mental distress without evidence
of physical injury did not apply when plaintiffs were former, as opposed to
current, prisoners. Doan v. Watson, 168 F. Supp. 2d 932 (S.D. Ind. 2001). [2002
JB Mar]
297:139 Prisoner who was barred, by Prison
Litigation Reform Act, from receiving compensatory damages for mental distress
from failure to receive kosher diet could still be awarded punitive damages by
a jury; appeals court orders new trial on punitive damages alone. Searles v.
Van Bebber, No. 99-3076, 251 F.3d 869 (10th Cir. 2001).
297:136 Provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act
barring claims for emotional distress unaccompanied by physical injury did not
bar Muslim prisoner's lawsuit for violation of his right to practice his
religion. Shaheed- Muhammad v. Dipaolo, 138 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D. Mass. 2001).
296:116 Colorado statute providing for sovereign
immunity to negligent injury claims by prisoners did not violate inmate's right
to equal protection of law; prisoner claiming he slipped and fell because of
officer's spilling of coffee and juice could amend complaint to assert claim
for "willful and wanton" misconduct. Davis v. Paolino, No. 00CA1322,
21 P.3d 870 (Colo. App. 2001).
295:102 Prisoner could not assert a claim for
damages for mental and emotional injuries from his alleged exposure to
asbestos, in the absence of a showing of physical injury. Herman v. Holiday,
#99-30863, 238 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2001).
292:60 Prisoner's claim for compensation for
alleged violation of his religious rights was barred without a physical injury,
but he could still seek both nominal and punitive damages. Allah v. Al-Hafeez,
No. 98-1385, 226 F.3d 247 (3rd Cir. 2000).
EDITOR'S NOTE: For decisions to the contrary, see
Canell v. Lightner, #95-35161, 143 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1998), (a prisoner
plaintiff was not barred under Sec. 1997e(e) from seeking compensatory damages
for violation of his First Amendment rights) and Rowe v. Shake, #98- 4207, 196
F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 1999), (despite Sec. 1997e(e), a "prisoner is entitled
to judicial relief for a violation of his First Amendment rights aside from any
physical, mental, or emotional injury he may have sustained.").
284:123 Prisoner's claim that requiring him to
keep his cell windows closed for three days and nights was cruel and unusual
punishment did not allege a physical injury as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act or a sufficient deprivation to be an Eighth Amendment
violation; state negligence claim was barred for failure to comply with notice
of claim requirement. Sarro v. Essex County Correctional Facility, 84 F. Supp.
2d 175 (D. Mass. 2000).
286:147 Alleged delay in providing
Spanish-speaking prisoner with AIDS medication was not a violation of the
Eighth Amendment when there was no claim that the failure to adequately advise
him of prison medical policies was deliberate; prisoner had no clearly established
right to Spanish-speaking medical personnel, so prison officials were not
liable for an "invasion of privacy" allegedly resulting from inmate's
need to use other prisoners as interpreters. Leon v. Johnson, 96 F. Supp. 2d
244 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
287:174 Prison Litigation Reform Act barred
prisoners from attempting to recover damages for mental or emotional injury
alleged caused by policies they said imposed stress on Muslim prisoners, in the
absence of a showing of physical injury. Craig v. Cohn, 80 F. Supp. 2d 944
(N.D. Ind. 2000).
[N/R] Provision of PLRA limiting ability to sue
for damages for mental injury in the absence of a physical injury does not
offend due process, and does not impair prisoner's right to seek declaratory
and injunctive relief. Harris v. Garner, #98-8899, 190 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir.
1999).
280:52 West Virginia prisoner could not recover
damages from warden for emotional distress allegedly caused by newspaper's
mistaken report that he had died in a prison fire; prisoner did not show that
warden had anything to do with publication of the information, and Prison
Litigation Reform Act barred recovery for emotional injury in the absence of
any showing of physical injury. Orum v. Haines, 68 F. Supp. 2d 726 (N.D.W.Va.
1999).
280:58 Prisoner's assertion that correctional
officers sexually assaulted him on three occasions satisfied the requirement of
a physical injury for recovery for emotional damages stated in the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Liner v. Goord, No. 98-2925, 196 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir.
1999).
272:116 Federal appeals court reinstates HIV-
positive prisoner's lawsuit complaining of nine months of denial of outdoor
exercise and prison's requirement that he wear a face mask whenever leaving his
cell; such restrictions might constitute due process or Eighth Amendment
violations; failure to provide him with particular medication he wanted,
however, did not show deliberate indifference when he was receiving other
treatment. Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, #98-3005, 165 F.3d 803 (10th
Cir. 1999).
272:119 Prisoner's lawsuit complaining about the
alleged presence of lead in prison's drinking water was not barred by PLRA
section barring the recovery of mental or emotional injury without a showing of
prior physical injury; prisoner could possibly recover damages for present or
future physical injury resulting from the alleged exposure to lead. Robinson v.
Page, #96-4239, 170 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 1999).
[N/R] Provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act
limiting recovery for mental injury to those cases involving prior physical
injury did not apply retroactively. Craig v. Eberly, #97-1308, 164 F.3d 490
(10th Cir. 1998).
[N/R] Provision of Prison Litigation Reform Act
requiring a showing of physical injury before recovery is available for
emotional injury did not apply retroactively. Cunningham v. Eyman, 11 F.Supp.2d
969 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
262:151 Provision of PLRA barring prisoners from
seeking damages for mental or emotional injury without a showing of physical injury
did not apply to lawsuit paroled prisoner brought against prison officials
after he was released, federal appeals court holds; court rejects his argument,
however, that participation in substance abuse program constituted
"brainwashing" that was cruel and unusual punishment. Kerr v.
Puckett, 138 F.3d 321 (7th Cir. 1998).
253:10 Sore and bruised ear inmate had after
incident with correctional officer was too minor an injury to be the basis for
an excessive force claim; prisoner's claim also failed requirement, under
Prison Litigation Reform Act, that he show a "physical injury" to
support any claim for emotional or mental suffering. Siglar v. Hightower, 112
F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997).
259:104 Federal appeals court upholds section of
Prison Litigation Reform Act barring claims for damages for mental or emotional
injury without a showing of physical injury; prisoners could not recover
damages for their alleged exposure to asbestos when no physical injury was
claimed. Zehner v. Trigg, 133 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 1997).
238:147 Federal Prison Litigation Reform Act
becomes law, makes numerous changes in prison litigation, including scope of
injunctive orders, standards for termination of injunctive orders, amount of
attorneys' fees, standard for prisoner release orders in overcrowding cases,
prisoner payment of filing fees and court costs, barring inmates who
repetitively file frivolous suits from further filings, no awards for
mental/emotional distress in the absence of physical injury, and revocation of
federal prisoner's good time credits if they file malicious lawsuits or testify
falsely, among other highlights.