Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01563-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK WAYNE SPRINKLE,

NO. CIV. S-02-1563 LKK/EFB P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

ROBINSON and PIERCE,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis against the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendants denied him access

to the courts by refusing to photocopy documents that he wished to

attach to his habeas corpus petition in state court. On August 20,

2007, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment on the issue of liability be granted and

defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. The court

adopted the recommendations in an order issued on September 26,

2007. On November 15, 2007, the Magistrate Judge ordered the

Case 2:02-cv-01563-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

parties to brief the issue of how damages should be determined and,

specifically, whether the issue of damages could be resolved on

cross motions for summary judgment. Based upon this briefing, on

February 12, 2008, the Magistrate Judge concluded that damages

could not be resolved based on cross motions for summary judgment

and set the matter for pretrial conference.

Before the court is the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration

of the Magistrate Judge’s February 12, 2008 order. Defendants argue

that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that the plaintiff

could recover damages for mental or emotional injury on the facts

and circumstances of this case. As explained below, the court

denies the defendants’ motion.

II. STANDARD

The court may reverse a Magistrate Judge’s ruling only if the

moving party shows that the ruling was “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a); see also Local Rule 72-303(f). 

III. ANALYSIS

In his February 12, 2008 order, the Magistrate Judge concluded

that trial was appropriate for determining the damages to which the

plaintiff was entitled because the calculation of damages for the

plaintiff’s emotional and mental injury, if any, could not be

determined based upon the undisputed facts of the case. See Order,

February 12, 2008, at 2. In their motion, the defendants contend

that the plaintiff is barred from recovering damages for emotional

and mental injury for his injury, under the Prison Litigation

Case 2:02-cv-01563-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Reform Act (“PLRA”) and Ninth Circuit precedent.

Under the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), a prisoner may not

recover for damages for mental or emotional injury suffered while

in custody without a prior showing of physical injury. As the

Magistrate Judge explained, this limitation on recovery, however,

does not apply when the plaintiff asserts a First Amendment claim.

Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.2d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998). In Canell,

the plaintiff, a prisoner, brought suit under Section 1983 based

on allegations that a corrections officer engaged in religious

“proselytizing activities” towards the plaintiff, in violation of

the plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights. Id. at 1212. The district

court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which

the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 1212-13. The Ninth Circuit

addressed the defendants’ argument that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) barred

the plaintiff’s relief:

The appellees in this case argue that this provision

bars Canell's action because he is alleging only “mental

or emotional injury” without the requisite physical

injury. We disagree. Canell is not asserting a claim for

“mental or emotional injury.” He is asserting a claim

for a violation of his First Amendment rights. The

deprivation of First Amendment rights entitles a

plaintiff to judicial relief wholly aside from any

physical injury he can show, or any mental or emotional

injury he may have incurred. Therefore, § 1997e(e) does

not apply to First Amendment Claims regardless of the

form of relief sought.

Id. at 1213. Here, the defendants argue that the Canell court

held that recovery for compensatory, nominal, or punitive

damages are permitted under the PLRA even if the plaintiff

has not alleged physical injury. The court concludes that the

Case 2:02-cv-01563-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

Magistrate Judge’s ruling was not “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law” for failing to adopt this interpretation. 

The Magistrate Judge interpreted Canell to hold that

“the PLRA does not limit plaintiff’s ability to seek damages

for mental or emotional distress for defendants’ violation of

his First Amendment right.” See Order, February 12, 2008, at

2. This interpretation is supported by the plain language of

Canell, which held that the plaintiff was entitled to relief

without a showing of physical injury, because the relief he

sought stemmed from a claim of violation of his First

Amendment rights. Canell, 143 F.2d at 1213. The Magistrate

Judge’s interpretation has also been applied by the Ninth

Circuit in a subsequent case. See Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d

1070, 1082 n. 6 (relying on Canell and rejecting defendant’s

argument that damages for emotional distress are unavailable

when the plaintiff alleges a First Amendment claim). The

plaintiff’s position here is analogous to that of the Canell

plaintiff: he has alleged a violation of his First Amendment

rights and seeks damages for this violation. Canell does not

limit his damages to a certain type nor preclude recovery for

damages for emotional distress that stemmed from the First

Amendment violation. See id. The Magistrate Judge’s ruling

was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

////

////

////

Case 2:02-cv-01563-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 02/29/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

IV. CONCLUSION

The defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 29, 2008.

Case 2:02-cv-01563-JAM-EFB Document 92 Filed 02/29/08 Page 5 of 5