2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-14-2005 

# Which ard v . B a y loy P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3210

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Which ar d v

. B a y lo y " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 408. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/408NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 04- 3210

________________ M AURI CE KI NG W HI CHARD

v. K. BA YL OY; CO OP E R; CL I F F OR D C OOP E R; KE NWI N B AYL OR

M aur i ce W hi char d, A ppel l ant

__________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 01- C V - 00148) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B ruce W . K auff m an

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober12, 2005 B efor e: V A N A N T W E R PE N , G R E E N B E R G and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: O ct ober14, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AMA t th e tim e th e p a rt ie s f ile d th e irin itia l b ri e f

s , n o tr ia l tr a n s c ri p t h a d b e e n p re p a re d . 1 S u b se q u e n tly , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted W h ich a rd ’s m o tio n f o r tra n sc rip ts a n d tra n sc rip ts w er e pr epar ed. W e then gave t he part i es 21 day s t o fi l e s uppl ement al br i efs . T he a p p e llee s f

iled a su p p lem e n tal b rie f , b u t W h ich a rd d id n o t. 2 M auri ce K i ng W hichar d co m m enced t his ci vil ri gh t s act i on byfi l i ng a pro se c o m p lain t in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia in w hi ch he a l l eged thathe w as punched, ki cked a nd s pr ay ed w i t h peppers pr aybypr i s on guar ds w hi l e he w as bei ng hel d as a pr etr i al det ai nee a tC ur r an Fr om hol d C or r ect i onal Faci l i t y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tl at erappoi nt ed couns el , and the mat t erpr ocee ded t o t r i al a g a in st tw o d e f

e n d a n ts o n c laim s o f

e x c e ss iv e f

o rc e , civ il co n sp ira c y , reta liatio n , as sa u lt and batt ery , m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on and i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s t r es s . T he j ur ycompl et ed a ve r di cts heeti n favorof def endant s on al l cl ai m s , exce ptt hati tfound t hat C orr ect i on al O ffi cer K enw i n B ay l or had c om m i t t ed assaultand batt eryagainst W hichar d. T he juryform i nd i cat es that i tfou nd t hat W hichar d suff ered dam ages as a re su lt o f th e a ss a u lt an d b a ttery. In a n sw e r to q u e stio n 4 (b ) o n th e f o rm a sk in g “ w h a t is t he am ou nt of m on ey , i f any , w hich w i l l com pen sat e P l ai nti ff fo r dam ages suffe red as a r es ul tof the as s aul t ?, ” the j ur yw r ot e “$0. ” W hi char d’ s t r i al couns el fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce o f a p p e a l a n d wi t h d r e w h i s a p p e a r a n c e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . O n ap p ea l, W h icha rd ra ises o n e c lai m : th at he w as n o t aw ard ed co m p en sato ry d a m a g e s, d a m a g e s f

o r p a in a n d su f

f e rin g , n o m in a l d a m a g e s o r p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. In th e ir su p p lem en tal b ri ef

, ap p ell ee s arg u e tha t th is C o u rtsh o u ld af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 1W h ile W h ich a rd a lso e x p e rie n c e d b u rn in g e y e s d u e to th e p e p p e r sp ra y , the ju ryd id 2 no tfi nd anyl i abil i t yfor use of the pep per spr ay ; t hu s no d am ages resul t i ng from i t s use ar e ati s s ue. T he j ur yal s o m ayhave be l i eved thatW hi char d’ s i nj ur i es w er e due t o s uch for ce that 3 B ay l or used j ust i fi ablyt o en force pri son regu l at i on s or pr otecthim sel f or ot hers. 3 entryof judg m ent i n acco rdance w i t h the j uryverdi ctaw ardi ng W hichar d zero d am ages, b e c a u se o f

th e m in im a l in

ju rie s W h ich a rd su f

f e re d a s a re su lt o f

O f f ice r B a y lo r’s a ss a u lt a n d b a t t e r y. U nderPenns y l vani a l aw , w hi ch governs t he as s aul tand batt erycl ai m , t he d e ter m in a tio n o f

w h e th e r a n yp a in su f

f e re d b ya p lain tiff

is c o m p e n sa b le is g e n e ra llyto be leftfor the jury . V an K i rk v. O ’To ole, 85 7 A . 2d 18 3, 18 6 (Pa. Sup er. 20 04 ). “T he tes t of w hethera ze r o ver di ctcan be uphel d [i s ] w hetherthe uncontr over t ed i nj ur i es ar e s uch t hata conc l us i on t hatt heyar e s o m i nort hatno compensa t i on i s w arr ant ed def i es comm on s e n s e a n d l o g i c . ” I d . a t1 8 5 . T h e e v i d e n c e h e r e s h o w e d t h a tW h i c h a r d r e c e i v e d o n l y a m i norors uper fi ci al l ace r at i on w i t h m i norbl eedi ng. T he onl yt r eatm entr equi r ed fort he 2 l ace r at i on w as a s t er i - s t r i p. T he j ur ym ayhave be l i eved thatanyof W hi char d’ s i nj ur i es t hatw er e ca us ed byB ay l or ’ s as s aul tand batt eryw er e s o m i noras t o be “a t r ans i entrub of life a n d liv in g ,” a n d th u s n o t co m p e n sa b le. S e e B o g g a v a ra p u v . E . S u b u rb a n H e a lth 3 C t r . , 542 A . 2d 516, 518 ( 1988) . See Fi r s tU ni on C om m er ci al C orp. v. G A T X C api t al C orp. , 41 1 F . 3d 55 1, 55 6 (4 C i r. 20 05 ) ( j ury ’s dam age aw ard not r eview able “unles s th uncons ci onabl e orm ot i vat ed byextr eme pr ej udi ce. ”) . W e w i l l t her efor e af fi r m t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.