Ecclesiastical Washington v. Larry Denney
900 F.3d 549
8th Cir.2018Background
- Washington, a prison inmate with chronic asthma and bronchitis, was housed at Crossroads Correctional Center where smoking policy prohibited indoor smoking but was routinely violated; many inmates smoked in cells and could keep tobacco and lighters.
- Medical staff issued "lay-ins" for Washington requiring a nonsmoking cellmate and issued a face mask; despite this he continued to suffer asthma attacks from secondhand smoke and ventilation that recycled smoke.
- Washington repeatedly complained to staff (letters, IRRs, grievances) and to officials Denney (warden), Pash (deputy/warden), Prudden (MDOC deputy director), and Richey (case manager); his grievances and mask requests were denied or not investigated.
- At trial a jury found the officials deliberately indifferent in violation of the Eighth Amendment and awarded $40,000 compensatory and $71,000 punitive damages apportioned among the officials.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed liability (deliberate indifference) but vacated the punitive damages award, finding insufficient evidence of conduct rising to the level of "outrageous, intentional, or malicious" to justify punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need by failing to abate risk from secondhand smoke | Washington: his asthma is a serious medical need; officials knew of complaints/medical orders yet ignored them and failed to enforce smoking policy | Officials: they knew of his asthma but took reasonable steps (changed cellmates at times, relied on medical/security determinations, followed policy and grievance process) | Affirmed: evidence permitted a jury to find officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk (deliberate indifference) |
| Whether punitive damages were justified | Washington: officials’ denials and failures to act warranted punishment/deterrence beyond compensatory damages | Officials: no evidence of evil motive, malice, or callous/reckless indifference to support punitive damages | Reversed/vacated: record lacked proof of the outrageous, intentional, or malicious conduct required for punitive damages |
| Whether qualified immunity bars liability | Washington: (implicit) officials violated clearly established Eighth Amendment rights | Officials: argued on appeal they had qualified immunity because rights were not clearly established | Not reached substantively: appellate court declined to address qualified immunity because it was not properly preserved below |
| Sufficiency of evidence for JML/new trial | Washington: testimony, lay-ins, grievances, and policy violations support jury verdict | Officials: evidentiary record insufficient to show culpable state of mind or causation | Affirmed: reviewing evidence in plaintiff's favor, reasonable jurors could find deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557 (8th Cir.) (deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of, and disregard of, a substantial risk)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard; official must know of and disregard an excessive risk)
- Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778 (8th Cir.) (punitive damages in § 1983 require evidence of willful, malicious, or callous/reckless conduct beyond mere liability)
- Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905 (8th Cir.) (punitive damages require conduct that is outrageous, intentional, or malicious)
- Haynes v. Bee-Line Trucking Co., 80 F.3d 1235 (8th Cir.) (standard for ruling on judgment as a matter of law; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Bavlsik v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 870 F.3d 800 (8th Cir.) (caution against overturning jury verdicts; reiterates JML standard)