940 F.3d 1233
11th Cir.2019Background
- Demetruis Carter appealed a jury verdict on his First Amendment retaliation claim and sought a new trial and an opportunity to recover compensatory and punitive damages. The panel affirmed the judgment and, following Eleventh Circuit precedent, rejected punitive damages because Carter alleged no physical injury.
- Carter petitioned for rehearing en banc; a majority of active judges voted against rehearing en banc and the court ordered that the case would not be reheard en banc.
- Judge William Pryor concurred in the denial of rehearing en banc, agreeing the case was a poor vehicle to revisit Eleventh Circuit precedent (especially Al–Amin v. Smith) because the remedial damages issue would not affect Carter’s outcome.
- Judge Martin dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing Eleventh Circuit precedent misreads 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) and improperly bars punitive and many compensatory damages for First Amendment claims absent physical injury.
- Central legal question: the scope of the PLRA’s “Limitation on recovery” (§ 1997e(e))—whether it bars punitive and/or compensatory damages that are not "for mental or emotional injury" or instead bars only damages that actually seek to redress mental/emotional harm.
- The opinions emphasize a circuit split: several circuits treat punitive and some compensatory awards as outside § 1997e(e), while Eleventh Circuit precedent has read the provision more broadly to preclude such remedies absent physical injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1997e(e) bars punitive damages absent physical injury for a First Amendment claim | Carter: §1997e(e) does not bar punitive damages because punitive damages punish/deter, not compensate for mental/emotional injury | Government/Defendant (and Eleventh Circuit precedent): §1997e(e) precludes punitive damages absent physical injury | Panel followed Al–Amin and refused punitive damages; en banc rehearing denied. Concurrence: issue is moot in this vehicle; Dissent: Eleventh Circuit precedent is wrong and punitive damages are not barred by the text of §1997e(e). |
| Whether §1997e(e) bars compensatory damages for First Amendment injuries absent physical injury | Carter/Dissent: §1997e(e) bars only damages "for mental or emotional injury"; compensatory awards may redress other concrete constitutional harms and thus are not categorically barred | Eleventh Circuit precedent: compensatory damages barred absent physical injury | Panel did not squarely decide for Carter (issue not outcome-determinative); Dissent urges overruling circuit precedent and aligning with other circuits that allow some compensatory awards. |
| Whether the district court erred by refusing a new trial for an alleged erroneous jury instruction | Carter: instruction was erroneous and warrants a new trial | District court/defense: no contemporaneous objection; plain-error standard not met | Panel held no error (plain or otherwise); affirmed. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appointed counsel | Carter: counsel was needed to pursue the case/fair trial | District court/defense: no abuse; discretionary denial appropriate | Panel held district court did not abuse discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Al–Amin v. Smith, 637 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2011) (Eleventh Circuit precedent holding PLRA bars compensatory and punitive damages absent physical injury)
- Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2007) (earlier Eleventh Circuit decision treating PLRA as precluding compensatory and punitive damages absent physical injury)
- Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (initial Eleventh Circuit analysis of PLRA’s limitation on recovery)
- Harris v. Garner (en banc), 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc decision addressing PLRA interpretation and scope)
- Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2015) (Eleventh Circuit panel holding PLRA does not bar nominal damages)
- Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2017) (Fourth Circuit holding First Amendment claims can support compensatory damages not limited to mental/emotional injury)
- Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (D.C. Circuit holding PLRA does not categorically bar compensatory or punitive damages)
- King v. Zamiara, 788 F.3d 207 (6th Cir. 2015) (Sixth Circuit holding punitive damages not barred by PLRA absent physical injury)
- Davis v. District of Columbia, 158 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (D.C. Circuit view on limiting punitive awards under PLRA; cited as taking narrower view)
- Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002) (earlier Eleventh Circuit decision affirming dismissal of punitive claim without discussion)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1978) (Supreme Court recognizing nominal damages vindicate rights even absent proof of actual injury)
- Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1986) (discussing punitive damages’ purpose of punishment and deterrence)