## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 1375 V ERNON A. H E ND R I CK S ON, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. S CO TT C OO PER, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, T erreH aute D ivisi on. No . 05 C268

—L arry J . M cKinn ey, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 10, 2009

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 21, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, S YKES, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. P rison is roug h. Violent p risoners can pose a ser ious thre at, r equi ri ng pri son offi cer s t o us e f o r ce t o mai nt ain o r der

. S o m et i m es , tho ug h, the onl y r ealthr eatco m es f ro m a ro gue o ffi cerwh o att acks a p risoner for no good reason . W h e n s u ch abu se occu rs i n a f ac i l i tyo per at ed bya S ta te , the pr i so ne rcans ue the offi cerunder the ci vi l r ights st atute , 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, f or excess i ve f or ce. S ti l l, a § 1 983 s u it is not a l w ays a perfect2 N o. 09

- 1375

re m ed y, as th e pr iso n er fac es m an y ch alle n g e s in pr o vinghi s ca se . He mustpi t hi s st o r y a g ains t th e co nfl i cti ng st or y of t h e defe nd ant o ffi cer, wh o often b oas ts an i m p ressive law enforcem en t résu m é a n d call s a cad re offel l ow offi cer s t o supp or t hi s s i de. Yet thi s ca se p ro ves that these chal l enges are not i nsurm ountabl e, and that § 1 983 pla ys a pi vot alr ol e in the c au se ag ai nst pr i son bruta l i ty. Vernon H endri ckso n, an inm ate atI nd i an a’s W abas h Val l ey Corr ecti on alFa ci l i ty, br ought a § 19 83 acti on ag ain st S er gea nt S cot t Coo per, an o ffi ceratthe f aci l i ty, cl ai m i ngtha t Coo pera tt ac k ed hi m wi th o utj us ti fi catio n. The case w en t to tr i albefor e a j ury, wh i ch f ound C oo per liab le for u sin g ex c es siv e forc e aga in st H en d ric ks o n in vi o l at ion o fthe Ei g hth Am en dm en t’ s ba n o n c r ue l a nd unus ua l puni shm en t, a war di ngb o thc o m pen sa to r y a nd puni ti ve da m ag es . Co o pera ppea l s, a r g ui ngthat the j ur y ’ s l i a b i l i t y fi nd i nga nd da mag e s a wa r ds we r e u ns up po r te d b y the e vi den ce . W e r ec o untthat e vi den ce i n the ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o t h e jur y’s ve rd ict
. Woodwar d v

. C orr. M ed. Serv s. of Ill

. , Inc. , 36 8 F
. 3d 917, 92 0, 92 6 ( 7th C ir. 2004). O n A pri l 21 , 20 05, H endri ckso n w as w al ki ng ba ck f ro m the pr i son’ s di ni ng h all to hi s ho usi ng uni t. H e pass ed Cooper, wh o, f orno apparent re aso n, cal l ed hi m a “so n of a bi tch. ” Hend ri ckso n sta ye d qui et and kept wal ki ng. Coo perpe r si st ed

. “ M o th erfuck er ” was Co o per ’ s ne xt i nsul t at H endri ckso n. H endri ckso n, no l onge r abl e t o b ite h i s t o n gu e, tu rn ed ba c k t ow ar d C oo p er an d to ld h im to “k ee p h is m ot h er off th e s tr ee ts .”N o. 09

- 1375 3 H endri ckso n’s verbal i nsul t w as unaccom panie d by a n y p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n . He n d r i c k s o n, a l o n g wi th t wo of his fel low inm ates w ho w itness ed t h e en cou nt er, tes ti fi ed that he neve r m ade any th re ate ni ng m ove m ents to w ar d s C oo p er . In d ee d , H en d ric ks on w as h ar d ly c ap ab le of c h all en gin g C oo p er p h ys ica lly, as tw o p rior ca r ac c idents r endered Hend ri ckson p arti al l y c ri pp l ed. The fi rs t ac c id en t d a m ag ed th e rig h t s id e o f H en d ric ks on ’s b ra in al ong w i th the l eft s i de ofhi s bo d y, affecting hi s abi l i ty to w alk . Th e s e c on d res u lte d in a h er n iat ed d isk in H endri ckso n’s neck. These i nj uri es l eft H en dri ckso n w ith se riou s p ain in h is n ec k a n d u p p er ba c k, as w ell as som e pai n i n hi s l ower ba ck. So wh i l e Hend ri ckson w as neverany physi calthr eat, hi s insul t g ave Cooper al l the excuse he needed. “You so n o fa b i tc h, y o u’ ve ha d i t no w, ” Coop er thr ea te ne d a s he w al ked i nto the ho usi ng uni t ahead ofH endri ckso n. A fter st al l i ngf o r a few mi nutes, H en dr i ck so n e nt er ed th e b u i l di ng, o n l y t o fi n d C o o p e r th e r e w a i t i n gf o r h i m. H e n d r i c ks on trie d to av oid ey e c on ta c t a n d qu iet ly w alk to h is ro om , bu t C oo p er w as h on ed in. “N ow , bitc h,” Coo perde m an ded as he thr ew hi s equi pm en t b el t o ut ofthe w ay, gr abbed Hend ri ckso n, thr ew hi m ag ai nst a w al l, sl am m ed hi m onto the co ncre te fl oo r, and pres sed hi s knees i nto H endri ckso n’s bac k whil e a nothero ffi cer cuff ed H en dr i ck so n. H en d ric ks on te st ifie d t h at all of th at “h u rtp re tt y b ad ,” especi al l y in l i ght o fhi s pre exi sti ng back a nd neckprobl em s. A fterCooper ’ s a tta ck, o ffi cer s t oo k Hend ri c ks on to a segregat ion un it, w he re he initial ly refused a nu rse’s4 N o. 09

- 1375 offer to exam ine him becau se he w as agitated and did n’t w an t to de al w ith p rison offici als. A fter abou t an h o u r, ho wev er, Hendr i ckson t o l d a nur se tha t he was fee l i ng “pai n al l o ver ” a nd r equeste d tre atm ent. A bout a m onth l ate r, H en d ri ckso n f ol l owed up w i th m ult i ple r equests for a tr an sfe r to a h o s p ita l for an M R I sc an an d ad d iti onalcar e, as the Tyl enoland ibuprofen thathe was r ec ei vi ng i n pr i so n wer e no t pr o vi di ngs uffi ci en t pain rel i ef

. H endri ckso n al so described f orthe j ury how C oop er’s attack inc r e a sed his back p ain. B efore Coop er’s as sa u lt, H en d ric ks on h ad a “ litt le b it of low er ba c k p ain ,” but thi s pai n beca m e m uch w or se after w ar ds. The ju ryf ound C oo per l i abl e f orusi ng exce ssi ve f or ce a g a i ns tHe nd r i c k s o n, i n v i o l a t i o n o fh i s Ei g hth Am e nd

m en t ri gh ts . Th e jur y a w ar d ed H en d ric ks on $7 5,0 00 in co m pen sa to r y da m ages f o r pa i n a nd s uffer i nga nd ta ck e d o n a p u n i t i v e d a ma g e s a wa r d o f $ 1 2 5 , 0 0 0
. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed Coo per ’ s m o ti o n underFe d. R. Ci v. P. 50 f orj ud gm ent a s a m at te r ofl aw o r a new tr i al

. Cooper appeal s, ar gui ng tha t the j ury’ s l i abi l i ty fi nd i ng was unsup port ed by the e vi dence and th at the dam age s aw ar ds w er e e xcessi ve. Begi nning w i th Cooper ’ s a tta ck on the j ury’ s l iabil i ty fi nd ing, C oop er faces an u p hillb a t t le , f or w e w il l overtu r n a j ur y v er di cto nl y if“ no l eg al l y s uffi ci en t evid en ti ar y b as i s” e xi st s “fo r a r ea so nabl e j ur y t o fi nd f orthe non- m ovi ng par ty. ” Wo o dw a rd, 3 6 8 F
. 3 d at 926 ( quo ta tion om i tte d). To det er m i ne i fthi s v er dictwas supp or ted bysuffi ci ent e vi dence, we m ust con sid er w hat Hend ri ckso n h ad t o p ro ve to m ake o ut hi s Ei ghthN o. 09

- 1375 5 Am en dm en t ex ce ss i ve f o r ce c l ai m . The c o r e r equi r ement f o r s uc h a cl a i m i s tha tCo o pe r u s e d fo r c e n o t“ i n a g o o dfait h effo rtto m ain ta in or r e s t o re d isc ip lin e,” bu t “ m alici ousl y a nd sa distica lly to cause harm

. ” H uds on v. M cM i l l i an , 5 0 3 U. S

. 1 , 7( 1 9 9 2 )

. S e v e r a l f a c t o r s g ui de th e in q u iry of w h et h er an offic er ’s u se of forc e w as legit im ate o r m al i ci ous, i ncl ud i ng “the nee d fo r an appli cati on o ff o r ce , the r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n tha t ne ed and the f o r ce a p p l i e d , th e th r e a tr e a s o n a b l y p e r c e i v e d b y the r es po ns ibl e o ffi ce r s, the e ff o r ts made to t em p er the se ve r i ty o f th e f o r ce empl o y ed, an d th e ex te nt of the i nj u ry s u ff er ed by the pr i sone r. ” O utla w v. New k irk, 25 9 F.3 d 83 3, 83 7 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ) (qu ot at ion o m i tt ed ). E ve n if an officer’s use of force serves no g o o d -f aith d iscipli na ry pu rpos e, the fo rc e m ay be s o “ de m inim is ” that i t doe s no t vio lat e t h e E igh th A m en d m en t. H uds on , 50 3 U.S. at 10 ( quoti ng Whit ley v . Alb ers , 475 U .S. 3 12 , 327 (19 86 )). Still, w h ile d e m in im is u se s o f forc e a re n on -ac tio n a b le, a pri sone r need not suffer“ se ri ous inj ury” i n or der t o b rin g a n E igh th A m en d m en t c laim

. Id. at4. T he eviden ce in t h is case am p ly su p p orts the j ury’s ve r di cttha t Coo pera tt ac k ed H end rick so n f o r the m al i ci o us pur po se o fc au singhar m . Hendr i ck so n a nd hi s f el l o w inm at es te st i fi ed th at he m ade no th r ea te ni ng m ov em en ts t o w a r d s C oo p er , or an yo n e e lse , bu t s im p ly re sp on d ed to C oo p er ’ s r e p ea te d cu ss in gs w ith an ins u lt ofhi s o w n. A ccepti ng H endri ckso n’s ve rs ion o fev ents, as we m us t, Co o perdi d no t reaso nabl y pe r ce i ve a ny th r eat f r o m Hendr i ck so n a nd ha d no ne ed to us e an y f or ce. N eve rthel ess , Cooperwait ed f orH endri ckso n to enter t h e housi ng uni t a nd then gr abbed hi m , sl am m ed6 N o. 09

- 1375 h im int o t h e w all a n d c o n c re te floor , an d p re ss ed h is knees i nto H endri ckso n’s bad back

. The j ury cou ld reaso nabl y fi nd th atthi s us e o ff o r ce was g r atui to us a nd in te n d ed so lely to ca u se p ain . (I t i s i n t er es tin g t h at although Hend ri ckso n’s te sti m ony w as cor ro bor ate d by tw o othe r i nm ate s, none ofthe othe r cor re c tio nal offi cer s pre sent du ri ng th e ev ents provi ded any evi dence at tria l.) Cooper’ s att ack w as al so not the type o fde m i ni m i s f or ce that cannot, as a m attero fl aw , co nsti tute an Ei ghth A m en d m en t v io lation

. Coop er offered m ore tha n a m ere “m al evo l ent t ouch, ” H uds on , 50 3 U
. S. at9, o r “si m ple act ofsho vi ng, ” D eWa lt v. C a rter, 2 2 4 F.3d 607, 620 (7th Cir. 20 00 ). C oo pert o o kHendr i ck so n t o the c o nc r et e g r o und a nd kne e d h i m i n the b a c k

. T hi s f o r c e wa s s e v e r e a nd , tho ugh pe r ha ps j us t i fi e d un de r o the r c i r c ums t a nc e s to re st ra in a d an ge ro u s in m at e, u n c alle d -for h er e. C f. Lew is v. D o w ney, 58 1 F
. 3d 46 7, 475- 76 ( 7th Ci r . 20 09) ( fi ndi ng th at th e u se of a t as er gu n w a s a m o r e t h an d e m in im is us e o ff o r ce , t r i g g er i ngthe i nqui ry of w he th erthe tasering served a l egitim ate d iscipli na ry pu rp ose). H en d ric ks on w as n o th re at, ye t C oo p er at ta c ke d h im for th e m ali cious p urp ose of cau s in g pa in. O r so the j ury c o ul d r e a s o nab l y fi nd

. Cooper ar gues th at H endri ckso n f ai l ed to pro ve that th e at ta ckc ause d a ny i nj ur y s ev er e en o ug h t o v i o l at e th e Eighth A m endm ent, st re ssi ng tha t Hend ri ckso n offer ed no e xpert m edi calevidence sho w i ng tha t the at tack ex ac e rb a t e d h i s p r e e x i s t i n gb a c kp a i n . T h i s a r g u me nt assign s to H endri ckso n a b urden thathe di d not hav e,N o. 09

- 1375 7

nam el y, proo f that he suffer ed any ser i ous i nj ury orl ongte r m pa i n. I t i s “ pain, no t i nj ur y, ” th ati s th e to uch st o ne of an E igh th A m en d m e n t c laim

. Id. at47 5. H endri ckso n tes ti fi ed that he fel t a l ot ofpai n w hen Cooperthr ew hi m to the gr ound. I t g ot w or se w h en C oo per gave hi m the knee tr eatm ent, causing wh at H endri ckso n described as a s harp, n eed l e- l i ke pai n i n hi s l ower ba ck. H endr i c k s o n’ s t e s t i mon y ab o utthe p a i n tha th e s uffe r ed f ro m the ass aul t, i fbel i eve d by the j ury, was enough t o show a n E i ghth Am endm ent v i ol ati on. The j ury w as not requ ired to fi nd that H en d rickson su ffered a m ore debi l i tat i ng, l onge r- ter m i nj ury. True, i fan offic er’ s use o ff or ce c auses o nl y m i nor i nj ur y, tha tf a c t o r t e nd s t o s ho w tha tthe f o r c e s e r v e d a p ro p er d isc ip lin ar y p u rp os e. Se eO ut l aw , 25 9 F
. 3d at 837. So i n case s where i t’ s debat abl e whet h er t h e use o ff or ce w a s l egitim ate or m ali cious, the lack of seri ou s inj ury m ay tip th e s c ale s a ga i n s t t h e p ris on er . See id

. at 839 ( relyi ng i n p a rt on th e m inor natu re of th e inm ate’s i nj uri es to concl ud e that the o ffi cer’s u se o ff or ce s er ved a le g i t i m at e s ec u rit y ob j ec tiv e); Lunsfor d v. B enne tt, 17 F. 3d 1574, 15 82 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( “Th is type o fm i nor inj u ry fu rt h er su p p or t s o u r co n c lu sio n th at atm os t t h is i nci dent w as a de m inim is use o f force noti ntended to c au se p ai n o r inj u ry to th e in m at e.” ). Th e jur or s in th is ca se di dn’ t ne ed th e e xt en t- o f

- i nj ur y f ac to r t o make up th ei r min ds; the y c o ul d r el y o n o th erf acto r s su cha s th e l ack ofany re aso nabl y per cei ved thr eato r need f or for c e, s e eO ut l aw , 25 9 F.3 d at 8 37, to fi nd thatCooper acte d w i th m al i ce.8 N o. 09

- 1375 A nd i n any eve nt, H endr icks on di d offerev i dence that he i n c u r r e d s e r i o u s , l o n g - t e r m i nj u r y fr o m th e a t t a c k

. He tes ti fi ed that, befor e the i nci dent, h e h ad a “ l i ttl e bi t o f l ower ba ck pai n, but i t wasn’t n ot hi ng l i ke i t was after I gotsla m m ed on th e c on c re te
. . . . Th er e’s n o c om p ar iso n .” Shortl y a fterthe i nci dent, H endri ckso n to l d a nurse that he was experi enci ng pai n thr oughout hi s bo dy. A m onth l ate r, he r epor ted pai n i n hi s “ l ow er b ack” and “i nsi des” an d r eque st ed a tran sfer t o a ho spi ta l f o r a n MRI s ca n. H e f o l l o w ed u p w ith a se c on d req u es t fo r an M R I, s t a t i ngtha tthe n o n- pr e s c r i pt i o n pa i n med i c a t i o ns tha t h e re c eiv ed in p ris on w er e in effe c tiv e a t a llev iat in g h is backpai n. I n yeta thi rd heal th ca re r equest, H endri ckso n r epe at ed hi s co m pl aint s o fc o nt inuo us , s ev er e ba ckpa i n. T his evid en ce allow ed the j ury to con clud e tha t C o o p e r’s at ta ckc au se d Hendr i ck so n s ev er e, r ec ur r i ngpa i n. W e a l so disa gr ee w ith C oo per’ s s ugges ti on that H endri ckso n had to s u pp or t hi s cl ai m s o fi ncre ase d back pain wi the xpe r t m edi cal e vi den ce . No e xpe r t te st i m o ny i s r equi re d to as sis t j uror s in deter m i ni ng the cause o f inj uri es that ar e withi n thei r com m on e xperi ences or o b se rv at ion s. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Chr i s t i an , 3 4 2 F
. 3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 2003). H ere, th e cau se of H en d rickson ’s pa in w as perfectl y c l ear : Cooperbea t hi m . H ad H endri ckso n cl ai m ed that Cooper neverto uched h im but m er ely d en i ed hi m acc ess to m edi calcar e f or seve ra l days, and that thi s del ay i n tr eat m ent e xacerbate d hi s ba ck problem s, w e m i ght r equi re H endri ckso n to supp or t hi s theor y o fcausa ti on with so m e obj ecti ve m ed ica l ev id en c e. See Wil l ia m s v. Liefer, 49 1 F

. 3d 710, 71 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( concl ud ing that apri sone r’ s m edi calN o. 09

- 1375 9

r ec o r ds wer e su ffi ci en t to fi nd tha t a del ayi n r es pondi ng t o co m p lain ts of ch es t p ain ca u se d u n n ec es sa ry p ain an d ele va te d b l o o d p r es su re ); Wa lk er v. P eters , 23 3 F
. 3d 49 4, 5 02 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( r ej ec ti ng a n Ei g hth Am en dm en t c laim ag ain st p ris on d oc to rs w h o r e fu se d ce rt ain re quests f orm ed ica tio n on the gr ound that the pri sone r cou ld only spe cu late that the refus al caus ed i njury). This case pre sents no such com pli c at ed q uesti on o f m edi calcausa ti on. H endri ckso n tes ti fi ed that Cooper beat him up and that it hu rt reall y bad

. Th e j ury believed him

. N o furthe r proof w as req u ir e d f o r the j ury to fi nd Coo p er l iable for viol ating H en d rickson’s Eighth A m endm ent r i ghts. S o mu c h f o r th e i s s u e o fC o o p e r ’ s l i a b i l i t y ; o n t o d a mage s. The di str i ct c ourtr efused to g ra n t a new tr i albas ed o n Co o per ’ s cl ai m tha t th e j ur y ’ s co m pen sa to r y a nd pu ni ti ve dam age s a w ar ds w er e e xcessi ve, a dec isi on th at w e re v i e w f or an ab u se of d isc re tio n . Harvey v. O ff ice of Ba nks & Real Estate, 3 7 7F
. 3 d 69 8 , 7 1 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )

. As f orthe $75, 000 i n com pensato rydam ag es aw ar ded to H en dr i ckson, we co ns i derwhethe r tha t awar d i s “monstr ousl y e xcessi ve” orl acks any ra ti onalcon necti on t o th e e vid en c e. SeeTh o m a s v. C ookCo unty Sher if f’s D ep’t, N o. 08

- 2232 , 20 09 W L 4251079 , a t *1 5 ( 7th Ci r. Dec. 1, 2 0 0 9 )

. We ma y a l s o c o mp a r e th e a wa r d w i tho th e r c o mpensato rydam age s a w ar ds uph el d i n sim il arcas es, al though s uch com pari sons ar e r ar ely d i sposi ti ve gi ven th e fa c t-s p ec ific n at u re of d am ag es cla im s. See H a rv ey, 377 F. 3d at 714
. T h e re quir ed “r ati onalco nnecti on” betw een the ev i dence and the aw ar d does not i m plym athem atical exac titud e, esp eciall y w h e re the com p en satory10 N o. 09

- 1375 d am ages are for pain an d sufferi ng . Such da m ages are ve r y di ffi c ul t t o qu a nt i fy, l e a v i ng i t t o the j ur y t o s el ect a do l l ara m o unttha t it be l i ev es wi l l f ai r l y c o m pen sa te the p lain tiff. Fenoli o v. Sm it h , 802 F.2d 256 , 2 59-60 (7th Cir. 1986 ). The j ury’ s a w ar d of$7 5, 000 w as ra ti onal l y con n ected to H en d rickso n’s ev i dence ofpai n and suf fer i ng. H endri ckso n descr ibed how m uch pain Cooper i nfl i cted bythr o wi nghi m to the g r o und a nd kne einghi m i n the back

. Fo l l owing the a tta ck, H endri ckso n continued to f eelbac k pai n that w as si gni fi can tl y wors e than bef or e, pr o m ptingse ve r alr eque st s f o r medi ca l t r ea tment
. The j ury hear d thi s e vi dence and then r ecei ved i nstr ucti ons, wi th o uto bj ec ti o n b y Co o per, tha t pr o per l y g ui ded th e j u ro rs w ith th e o f t e n -u se d lan gu ag e t h at is st an d ar d in d am ag es ins tr u c tio n s. Sp ec ifica lly, th e jur or s w er e t old that, am ong othe r thi ngs: C om pensato rydam age s ca n al so cove r dam age s th at are less spe cifi c [than out-of-pock et m one tary harm ] , such a s pai n and suf fer i ng, i nconveni ence, m entalangui sh, sh ockand dis com f or t, and l oss ofenj oym ent o fl i fe.

. . . .

. . . N o evi dence ofthe dol l ar val ue o fphysi calo r m en ta l or em ot ion al p ain an d su ffer in g or d isa b ili tyha s be enorne eds t o b e i nt r o duce d. The r e i s no exact sta nd ar d fo r set ti ng the dam ag es to be aw ar ded o n acco un t of pain a nd suffer i ng. You a r e t o d e t e r mi n e a n a mo u n t th a t wi l l f a i r l y c o mpe ns a t e the P l a i nt i fff o r the i nj ur y h e h a s s us t a i ne d.N o. 09

- 1375 11 The am ount that the j ury cam e up w i th w as $75, 000, wh i ch w as not a m onst ro usl y e xcessi ve est i m ate o fthe pai n that H endri ckso n expe ri enced, and continues to exper i ence, f r o m h i s o r dea l

. A di ffer en t j ur y may ha ve c ho se n a lower num ber, but thi s uncer tai nty i s unavo i dabl e when m aki ng di ffi cul t e sti m ate s o fpai n and suf fer i ng. Ad di ti o na l l y, the j ur y ’ s awar d o f$ 75 , 000 for pain a nd su ffer in g is n otou t o fl in e w ith sim ilar aw ar d s u p h eld in th e p as t. See R eising v. U nited Sta tes , 60 F. 3d 1241 , 12 44 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( upho l di ng$ 15 0, 00 0 i n pa i n a nd s uffer i ng dam age s f oracc el er ati on o fbac k pr obl em s r esul ti ng fro m a c ar ac c id en t); Hagg e v. B a uer, 827 F.2d 101, 109-10 (7th Cir. 1987 ) ( affi rm i ng a com pensato rydam age s a w ar d of $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 , e x c l u s i v e o fme d i c a l b i l l s , f o r p a i n fr o m a b r o k e n l e gca u s e d b y a p o l i c e o ffi c e r ’ s a s s a u l t )

. We m i g hthave a d i ff er en t ca se i fthe j ur y c ame b ac kwi tha com pensato rydam age s a w ar d i n the m i l l i ons, o r eve n th e $350,000 in total d am ages requ ested b y H en d rickson’s tr i alco unsel

. I n thi s ca se, tho ugh, we c an not saythat $75,000 w as an exc essive valua t io n of H en d rickson’s pai n and suf f er i ng. Echoi ng hi s chal l enge to the j u ry ’s li abi l i ty fi nd i ng, C oop er argue s tha t the com p en satory d a m ages aw ard i s ex ce ss i ve abs ent ob j ec ti ve medi ca l e vi den ce s ho wi ng th atCo o perc au se d Hendr i ck so n’ s i nc r ea se i n b ac kpa i n. A gai n, we disa gr ee. Giv en the un iq uel y s ubj ecti ve n at u re of p ain , s e eCoope rv. Casey , 9 7 F.3 d 914, 91 7 ( 7th Cir

. 19 96) , i t i s underst andabl e that He n d ric kso n re l i ed pr i ma r i l y o n h i s o wn t e s t i mo n y t o p r o v e h i s p a i n a nd suff er i ng. H e desc ribed how m u c h w or se hi s ba ck fel t a s12 N o. 09

- 1375

a r esul t o fCooper ’ s a ssa ult, and th e ver dictsho w s that th e j ur y be l i ev ed hi m . At th at po i nt, th e j ur y had the dut y t o f ai r ly co m pen sa te Hendr i ck so n, a t as ktha t th e j ury coul d perf or m witho ut o bj ecti ve m ed i calev i dence att em pti ng to quanti fy Hend ri ckso n’s pai n and suf fer i ng. C f. G r e e n o v . D a ley, 41 4 F
. 3d 645, 65 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( obser vi ng tha t a p ris onerdi d not nee d to offer“ ‘ obj ecti ve’ evi dence ofhi s pai n and suf fer i ng” in or der t o re cove r f o r pri so n do ct o r s’ de l ibe r at e i ndi ffer en ce t o a s er i o us m ed ical con d iti on). Sat i sfi ed that the $ 75, 000 com pe n sator y dam age s awar d i s su ppo r te d b y the e vi den ce , we close b y c o nsi deri ng the $ 125, 000 pu ni ti ve dam age s a w ar d. Cooper r ai se s no c o ns ti tu ti o na l c ha l l en g e to the s i ze o fthe pu ni t i v e da mag e s a wa r d, wh i c h we wo ul d c o ns i de r de n ov o. K unz v. D eFeli ce, 538 F.3d 667, 678 (7th C ir. 2008). In st ea d , C oo p er sim p ly a rg u es th at th e a w ar d is excess i ve i n l i ght o fthe evi dence, so we re vi ew o nl y for an ab u se of d isc re tio n . Id. “W e w il l set a s id e a j ury’s aw ar d ofpuniti ve dam age s o nl y i fwe are cer tai n that i t e xceeds wh at i s nec essar y to ser ve the obj ecti ves of deter re nce and punishm ent. ” EE O C v. AI C Se c. Inv e s t igat i ons, Lt d. , 5 5 F
. 3d 12 76 , 1 28 7 ( 7th C ir. 1 995)

. As wi tho ur r ev i ew o fa c o m pen sa to r y da m ag es aw ar d, i t i s us eful to com p are the cha ll en ged pu nitive d am ages aw ard w ith ot h er aw ar d s u p h eld in t h e p as t. Se ei d. W e do not fi nd $1 25, 000 excess i ve. “Puni ti ve dam age s ar e appr o pr i ate whe n the de fen dan t ac te d want o nl y a nd w il lfully, or w as m otiv ated i n his actions by i llw il l or a desi re to i nj ure. ” Hagge, 8 2 7 F .2 d a t 1 10 . Th e jur y in th isN o. 09

- 1375 13

ca se he ar d a m pl e ev i den ce tha t Coo pera ct ed wi ththe m alic iou s d es ire t o c au se H en d ric ks on h ar m . I t is diffi cul t t o det er m in e the exac t a m ount r equi re d to deter an d p u n ish su c h m isc on d u c t, s e ei d. , b u t w e ca nnot s ay wi thc er ta i nty tha t $1 25 , 00 0 i s to o much. True, $1 25, 000 i s l ar gerth an t he puniti ve dam age s aw ar ds that w e hav e uphel d in si m i l ar, tho ugh l ess r ecent, ex c es siv e fo rc e c as es . Se eB ogan v. St r oud, 958 F. 2d 180, 18 2, 186 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92 ) ($ 7000 i n to talpuniti ve dam age s aga i nst three pri son offi cer s who beatand stabbed an in m at e a fte r su b d u in g h im ); Hagge, 82 7 F
. 2d at 104, 11 0 ( $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 a g a i ns ta p o l i c e o ffi c e r wh o k i c k e d a n a r r e s tee an d br ok e h er leg); Talif er ro v. Aug le, 75 7 F
. 2d 157, 15 9, 16 2 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 5) ( $2 5, 00 0 ag ains t tw o po l i ce o ffi ce r s who b e a ta n a r r e s t e e )

. Mo r e r e c e nt l y, we h a v e u ph e l d a wa r ds approachi ng the $1 25,0 00 i m posed her e, but these case s invol ved m ult i ple o ffi c er s w ho use d fo rce thatwas p ro b ab ly m or e s ev er e t h an C oo p er ’s a tt ac k. S e eKunz , 53 8 F.3d at 671 , 679 ($90,000 i n to t a l p un iti ve d am ages w he re m ul t i pl e p o l i c e o ffi c e r s b e a ta n a r r e s t e e a ft e r h e was subdu ed and, l ate r at the s tat i on, bea t o ut a f al se confessio n ); M ars hal l ex re l

. Gos s e ns v. Te s ke, 284 F. 3d 765, 76 8- 69, 772-73 (7th Ci r . 2 0 02) ($100,000 against th ree officers who ch as ed a m i no r a t g unpoi nt, a r r es te d hi m , a nd d etaine d him f or several hou rs w ithou t prob able cau se); C o o per, 97F. 3d at 916, 92 0 ( $120 , 000 a gai nst s eve n pri son g ua r ds who b e a t i nma t e s a nd the n r e fus e d r e qu e s t s f or m ed icaltr eat m ent)

. Drawing com pari sons to these cas es, perhaps $ 125, 000 approaches the up per end of w hat was necess ar y t o pu ni sh Cooper ’ s l one a c t ofat tack i ng a pr i so ne r f o r no g o o d r ea so n.14 N o. 09

- 1375 St i l l, we thi nk tha t the subst an tialev i dence ofm al i ce in th is case brings the $125 , 000 pu nitive d am age s a w a rd w i thi n the bounds ofr eas onabl eness . I n the dist i nct but r el ate d context ofa const i tutio n al c hal l enge to a pu ni ti ve d am age s a w ar d, the S up re m e Cour t has obs er ve d t hat the m osti m port ant f acto r i s “ the deg re e o f re prehensibi l i ty ofthe defe n dant’s co nd uct. ” Sta te Fa rm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co
. v. Ca m pbel l , 53 8 U
. S. 40 8, 41 9 ( 2003 ) ( qu o t a t i o n o mi t t e d)

. Co o pe r ’ s u s e o ffo r c e was re p re h en sib le b ec au se it w as co m p let ely u nj u st ified . I t wa s no t a s tho ugh Co o pe r wa s i ni t i a l l y c o mpel l ed to us e so m e f o r ce a g ains t H en dr i ck so n, b utthe jur y f o und th at h e s im p ly w en t t oo far. Cf. Kunz , 53 8 F
. 3d at 670- 71 ( re counti ng the pl ai nti ff’ s a cti ons of d el i ver i ng drugs , dr i vinga s to l env eh i cl e whi l e drun k, a nd fl ee i ngthe p oli ce, al l of w hich n e c e ssitated the p lai nt iff’ s arrest). Cooper’ s a cti ons w er e del iber ate and cal cul ate d to cre ate a vi ol ent c onfro ntatio n w i th H endri ckso n. Cooper goa ded H end ric kson i nto l eve l i ng an i nsul t, wh i ch C oo p er used as an excuse to att ack. Cooper then l ay in w ai t f orH en d ric kso n to ente r the ho usi ng uni t. W hen He nd r i c k s o n fi na l l y a pp e a r e d, Co o per gr a b b e d, s ho v e d, fl oo re d , a n d k need hi m . H endri ckso n’s di sabi l i ty m ade hi m es peci al l y v ulne rabl e to su ch se ver e f or ce, in c re as in g t h e like lih oo d th at C oo p er ’s a tt ac k w ou ld ac h iev e h is pu rp os e of ca u sin g p ain
. Cf. i d. at67 9 ( obs er vi ng tha t the pl ai nti ff“was shack l ed and defe nsel ess whi l e he was b ei ng pun ch ed an d thus v ul ne r ab l e to the i nj ury i nfl i cted”) . C oo per al so perpetr ate d thi s a tta ck r i g hti n the pr es en ce o fo th eri nm ate s, a s i fCo o peri nte nde d t o v i vi dl y de m o ns tr ate who was the b o ss . TheN o. 09

- 1375 15

I ts houl d be not ed that H en dri c ks on pro c ee ded pro s e thr ough  the e ar l y s t ages ofthi s c as e, i nc l udi ng the s um m ar y j udgm en t process , ri ght up to the brink oftr ial . A t th a t p oint, the dist ri ct jud g e req u ested tha t c o u n sel ap p ear on H en d rick son ’ s be ha lf pu rs uant to 28 U
. S. C. § 1915( e)( 1)

. The law fi rm thatcom plie d with thatr eques tvery abl y r epr es en t ed Hen dri c ks on thr ough t r i a l a n d th i s a p p e a l , th e r e b y u p h o l di n g th e l o n g s t a n di ng a nd gr ea t l y a pprec i at ed t ra di t i on ofvol unt ee ri ng t o r epr es en tthe ind ige nt.

12- 21- 09 j ury coul d find that$12 5,0 00 was neces sar y t o pu ni sh and deter thi s m al i ci ous use o ff or ce. The ev id ence supp or ted the j ury’ s fi nd i ng tha t Coo perv i o l at ed H en dr i ck so n’ s Ei g hth Am en d m en t ri ghts, as w el l as the j ury’ s com pensato ry an d p u ni ti ve dam age s a w ar ds.  A FFI RMED .