×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Unlawful Withdrawal of Prisoner's Funds Warrants Only Nominal Damages
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Ohio federal district
court decision awarding only nominal damages to a state prisoner in an
action alleging that Ohio corrections officials unlawfully withdrew money
from the prisoner's account.
Kenneth Brown, a prisoner in custody of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (DORC), sued several Ohio corrections
officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming that the defendants violated his
right to due process and rights under the First and Eighth Amendments.
Specifically, Brown claimed that prison officials removed money from his
prison account without notice or a hearing and that this removal denied him
access to courts and the ability to purchase hygiene products. Brown sought
injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.
A magistrate recommended summary judgment for the defendants. The district
court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion on Brown's First and
Eighth Amendment Claims but held that defendants' actions in removing money
from Brown's account without notice or a hearing violated due process. The
district court awarded Brown nominal damages of $100, and Brown appealed.
The appeals court held that Brown was not entitled to compensatory damages
on the claim. While defendants did violate Brown's due process rights,
Brown failed to show an actual injury. The appellate court also denied
punitive damages because Brown failed to show "that the defendants' conduct
was the result of an improper motive or was recklessly indifferent to his
due process rights." The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment to the
defendants on the remaining claims, holding they were meritless.
The district court's judgment was affirmed. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
Brown v. Brown, 46 Fed.Appx. 324 (6th Cir. 2002).
court decision awarding only nominal damages to a state prisoner in an
action alleging that Ohio corrections officials unlawfully withdrew money
from the prisoner's account.
Kenneth Brown, a prisoner in custody of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (DORC), sued several Ohio corrections
officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming that the defendants violated his
right to due process and rights under the First and Eighth Amendments.
Specifically, Brown claimed that prison officials removed money from his
prison account without notice or a hearing and that this removal denied him
access to courts and the ability to purchase hygiene products. Brown sought
injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.
A magistrate recommended summary judgment for the defendants. The district
court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion on Brown's First and
Eighth Amendment Claims but held that defendants' actions in removing money
from Brown's account without notice or a hearing violated due process. The
district court awarded Brown nominal damages of $100, and Brown appealed.
The appeals court held that Brown was not entitled to compensatory damages
on the claim. While defendants did violate Brown's due process rights,
Brown failed to show an actual injury. The appellate court also denied
punitive damages because Brown failed to show "that the defendants' conduct
was the result of an improper motive or was recklessly indifferent to his
due process rights." The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment to the
defendants on the remaining claims, holding they were meritless.
The district court's judgment was affirmed. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
Brown v. Brown, 46 Fed.Appx. 324 (6th Cir. 2002).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Brown v. Brown
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 46 Fed.Appx. 324 (6th Cir. 2002). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 100 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
KENNETH BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERNON BROWN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-3880
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
46 Fed. Appx. 324; 2002 U.S. App.
September 16, 2002, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
PRIOR HISTORY: Northern District of Ohio. 98-01480. Wells. 07-11-01.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: KENNETH BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se, Marion, OH.
For VERNON BROWN, Defendant-Appellee: Marianne Pressman, Office of the Attorney General, Cincinnati, OH.
JUDGES: Before: BOGGS and COLE, Circuit Judges; BATTANI, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Marianne O. Battani, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*324] ORDER
Before: BOGGS and COLE, Circuit Judges; BATTANI, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Marianne O. Battani, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Kenneth Brown appeals [**2] from a district court order awarding him nominal damages in his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously [*325] agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, Brown sued several Ohio correctional officials and personnel, alleging that the defendants violated his First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process rights when they removed money from his prison account, denied him access to the courts, and prevented him from purchasing personal hygiene items. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for the defendants. While the district court agreed that Brown's Eighth Amendment and access to the courts claims were without merit and granted summary judgment to the defendants on those claims, the court concluded that the defendants violated Brown's due process rights by removing money from his account without first providing him with notice and an opportunity to respond. Although the court subsequently concluded that Brown was [**3] not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages for this violation of his due process rights, the court did award him $ 100 in nominal damages. In this timely appeal, Brown argues that the district court improperly concluded that he was not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages and improperly granted summary judgment to the defendants on his Eighth Amendment and access to the courts claims.
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly determined that Brown was not entitled to compensatory damages. Once a constitutional violation is established, the court must look at the injury sustained and the appropriate means of redressing it. Parrish v. Johnson, 800 F.2d 600, 608 (6th Cir. 1986). While the defendants have the burden of showing that this constitutional violation did not cause any injury to the plaintiff, the plaintiff still retains the burden of proving the actual damages that he suffered. Franklin v. Aycock, 795 F.2d 1253, 1263-64 (6th Cir. 1986). Brown has not met his burden of showing that he suffered any actual injury in this case. While Brown also argues that he is entitled to damages because he had a state-created liberty [**4] interest in maintaining a certain sum in his prison account, the regulation he cites does not rise to the level of creating a liberty interest because it does not impact his freedom from restraint nor does it impose an atypical or significant hardship on him. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995).
The district court also properly determined that Brown should not receive punitive damages. The standard for punitive damages in a federal civil rights action is based on the defendant's state of mind and does not require egregious or outrageous behavior. Preferred Props., Inc. v. Indian River Estates, Inc., 276 F.3d 790, 799 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 959, 153 L. Ed. 2d 838, 122 S. Ct. 2663, 2002 WL 976557 (2002). Punitive damages are available in a § 1983 action when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of the plaintiff. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 75 L. Ed. 2d 632, 103 S. Ct. 1625 (1983). Brown has not shown that the defendants' conduct was the result [**5] of an improper motive or was recklessly indifferent to his due process rights.
We also conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown's remaining claims. This court reviews de novo a district court order granting summary judgment. Lucas v. Monroe County, 203 F.3d 964, 971 (6th Cir. 2000).
Brown's Eighth Amendment claim fails to even state a claim. Brown argues that he was unable to purchase personal hygiene and toiletry items for several months because of the hold on his account. [*326] Any inconvenience he suffered does not demonstrate a condition of confinement that falls beneath the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001).
Brown's access to the courts claim also is without merit. To demonstrate that the defendants' actions have impacted his access to the courts, Brown must show that he suffered some actual prejudice in prosecuting litigation. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996). Brown has not made this showing.
Accordingly, this court affirms the district court's judgment. [**6] Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
No. 01-3880
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
46 Fed. Appx. 324; 2002 U.S. App.
September 16, 2002, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
PRIOR HISTORY: Northern District of Ohio. 98-01480. Wells. 07-11-01.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: KENNETH BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se, Marion, OH.
For VERNON BROWN, Defendant-Appellee: Marianne Pressman, Office of the Attorney General, Cincinnati, OH.
JUDGES: Before: BOGGS and COLE, Circuit Judges; BATTANI, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Marianne O. Battani, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*324] ORDER
Before: BOGGS and COLE, Circuit Judges; BATTANI, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Marianne O. Battani, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Kenneth Brown appeals [**2] from a district court order awarding him nominal damages in his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously [*325] agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, Brown sued several Ohio correctional officials and personnel, alleging that the defendants violated his First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process rights when they removed money from his prison account, denied him access to the courts, and prevented him from purchasing personal hygiene items. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for the defendants. While the district court agreed that Brown's Eighth Amendment and access to the courts claims were without merit and granted summary judgment to the defendants on those claims, the court concluded that the defendants violated Brown's due process rights by removing money from his account without first providing him with notice and an opportunity to respond. Although the court subsequently concluded that Brown was [**3] not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages for this violation of his due process rights, the court did award him $ 100 in nominal damages. In this timely appeal, Brown argues that the district court improperly concluded that he was not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages and improperly granted summary judgment to the defendants on his Eighth Amendment and access to the courts claims.
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly determined that Brown was not entitled to compensatory damages. Once a constitutional violation is established, the court must look at the injury sustained and the appropriate means of redressing it. Parrish v. Johnson, 800 F.2d 600, 608 (6th Cir. 1986). While the defendants have the burden of showing that this constitutional violation did not cause any injury to the plaintiff, the plaintiff still retains the burden of proving the actual damages that he suffered. Franklin v. Aycock, 795 F.2d 1253, 1263-64 (6th Cir. 1986). Brown has not met his burden of showing that he suffered any actual injury in this case. While Brown also argues that he is entitled to damages because he had a state-created liberty [**4] interest in maintaining a certain sum in his prison account, the regulation he cites does not rise to the level of creating a liberty interest because it does not impact his freedom from restraint nor does it impose an atypical or significant hardship on him. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995).
The district court also properly determined that Brown should not receive punitive damages. The standard for punitive damages in a federal civil rights action is based on the defendant's state of mind and does not require egregious or outrageous behavior. Preferred Props., Inc. v. Indian River Estates, Inc., 276 F.3d 790, 799 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 959, 153 L. Ed. 2d 838, 122 S. Ct. 2663, 2002 WL 976557 (2002). Punitive damages are available in a § 1983 action when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of the plaintiff. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 75 L. Ed. 2d 632, 103 S. Ct. 1625 (1983). Brown has not shown that the defendants' conduct was the result [**5] of an improper motive or was recklessly indifferent to his due process rights.
We also conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown's remaining claims. This court reviews de novo a district court order granting summary judgment. Lucas v. Monroe County, 203 F.3d 964, 971 (6th Cir. 2000).
Brown's Eighth Amendment claim fails to even state a claim. Brown argues that he was unable to purchase personal hygiene and toiletry items for several months because of the hold on his account. [*326] Any inconvenience he suffered does not demonstrate a condition of confinement that falls beneath the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001).
Brown's access to the courts claim also is without merit. To demonstrate that the defendants' actions have impacted his access to the courts, Brown must show that he suffered some actual prejudice in prosecuting litigation. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606, 116 S. Ct. 2174 (1996). Brown has not made this showing.
Accordingly, this court affirms the district court's judgment. [**6] Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.