Kevin King v. Chuck Zamiara
788 F.3d 207
6th Cir.2015Background
- Kevin King, a Michigan prisoner, was transferred from a Level II to a more restrictive Level III facility after participating in a class action (the Cain litigation) and assisting other prisoners with grievances; he alleged the transfer was retaliatory in violation of the First Amendment.
- The transfer limited his movements and hindered his ability to gather affidavits and assist the Cain litigation; he was later returned to Level II after ~10 months.
- King sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; after multiple appeals and remands, this panel previously found three defendants (Wells, Chaffee, Zamiara) liable for retaliation and remanded for judgment.
- On remand the district court awarded $1,475 in compensatory damages and $2,212.50 in attorney fees, but denied punitive damages and injunctive relief; both sides appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit addressed (1) whether 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) bars compensatory relief for First Amendment violations absent physical injury, (2) appropriateness and measure of compensatory (including presumed) damages, (3) denial of punitive damages, (4) injunctive relief, and (5) calculation and cap on attorney fees under the PLRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) to First Amendment claims | King: § 1997e(e) bars suits for mental/emotional injury only; constitutional injuries (First Amendment) are distinct and recoverable without physical injury. | Defendants: PLRA bars compensatory damages in prisoner suits absent physical injury regardless of the underlying constitutional claim. | § 1997e(e) does not bar claims seeking relief for constitutional (First Amendment) injuries distinct from mental or emotional harms; King’s claim survives without pleading physical injury. |
| Entitlement to and measure of compensatory damages | King: transfer caused actual, compensable injury (loss of ability to assist litigation); presumed damages appropriate where injury is real but hard to quantify. | Defendants: any damages must be tied to physical injury or otherwise quantifiable harm. | Compensatory damages are available for actual constitutional injury; presumed damages may be awarded when injury is difficult to quantify. District court’s $1,475 award (presumed $5/day) affirmed as within discretion. |
| Denial of punitive damages | King: defendants acted with retaliatory animus; punitive damages appropriate given willful/reckless infringement of rights. | Defendants: conduct did not meet standard for punitive damages. | Denial of punitive damages was an abuse of discretion because liability for First Amendment retaliation permits consideration of punitive damages; remand to let district court decide whether to award them. |
| Injunctive relief & attorney-fee cap under PLRA | King: requested injunction to remove certain documents and sought attorney fees (subject to PLRA limits). | Defendants: no due-process violation supports injunctive relief; PLRA caps and fee-apportionment apply. | No injunctive relief (due-process claim previously dismissed); attorney fees properly capped at 150% of money judgment but district court must recalculate cap and apply the statutory requirement that up to 25% of judgment may be used toward fees on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (plaintiff must show actual injury for compensatory damages for constitutional violations)
- Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986) (damages may not be based on abstract value of a constitutional right; presumed damages may be appropriate when injury is real but hard to quantify)
- Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) (punitive damages in § 1983 require evil motive, intent, or reckless/callous indifference)
- Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 1999) (First Amendment violations can entitle prisoners to relief apart from mental or physical injury)
- Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005) (majority view that § 1997e(e) bars compensatory damages absent physical injury regardless of underlying claim)
- Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (presumed damages appropriate for tangible liberty losses difficult to quantify)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (element of retaliation claim requires adverse action motivated at least in part by protected conduct)
- Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001) (standard of review for punitive-damages-related factual findings and abuse of discretion)