42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 permits punitive damages for extreme and outrageous conduct warranting punishment beyond compensatory damages.

MITCHELL EX REL. FR v. Bones · filed 2005-09-06

Punitive damages may be awarded under § 1983 for “extreme and outrageous” conduct. ... It is difficult to imagine a case where the imposition of punitive damages under either the § 1983 or Maine state standard would be more appropriate.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against individual defendants whose conduct is motivated by evil intent or shows reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Smith v. Central Dauphin School District · filed 2005-09-23

Punitive damages may be awarded in a § 1983 action only where “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 others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983). ... Because Plaintiff has sued the Individual Defendants in their individual capacity, and because Plaintiff has properly pled that Defendants acted with the 'requisite motivation, the court will not dismiss Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages against the Individual Defendants.

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against municipal entities.

Fernandez v. Taos Municipal Schools Board of Education · filed 2005-09-26

Defendants are correct that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipal entities under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with an evil motive or with reckless or callous indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Nelson v. Giurbino · filed 2005-10-20

Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. ... Punitive damages are available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... To support such an award, the jury must find either that the defendant acted with an evil motive or demonstrated reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against individual defendants for conduct motivated by evil intent or showing reckless or callous indifference to constitutional rights, but not against municipalities.

Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Borough of Norristown · filed 2005-11-21

Punitive damages, however, may not be awarded against municipalities such as Norristown Borough. ... However, in a § 1983 claim against individual defendants, a jury may assess punitive damages if the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by an evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to constitutionally protected rights. ... Therefore, I will allow Davis’ claim for punitive damages to stand against Officers Schurr, Mitchell, and O’Connell, but not against Defendant Norristown Borough.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a school board because the same immunity that protects municipalities applies to school boards.

Moss v. Shelby County · filed 2005-11-29

The same rationale that makes a municipality immune from paying punitive damages applies to a school board. In both situations the taxpayers would be burdened if the court were to award punitive damages in the plaintiffs favor. As a result, this Court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages.

Section 1983 permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover money damages from an individual for a violation of the United States Constitution.

Maizner v. Hawaii, Department of Education · filed 2005-12-01

A prevailing plaintiff in a § 1983 action may recover money damages from an individual for a violation of the United States Constitution.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Jones v. City of Modesto · filed 2005-12-16

Punitive damages are appropriate in a 42 U.S.C. § 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 others.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality.

C.O. v. Portland Public Schools · filed 2005-12-22

Defendants assert that as a municipality, PPS is immune from punitive damages under §§ 1983 and 1985. ... The request for punitive damages against PPS pursuant to the § 1983 claim is stricken.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a city.

Fairbanks v. City of Bradenton Beach · filed 1989-09-06

Defendants assert, and Plaintiff concedes, that punitive damages are not available against Defendant the City of Bradenton Beach. Accordingly, it is ... ORDERED that ... claims for punitive damages against the City of Bradenton Beach be dismissed.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Wright v. Jones · filed 1990-07-10

We reject the guards' argument for two reasons. ... Second, the Supreme Court explicitly held in Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983), that a jury may assess punitive damages if a "defendant's conduct ... involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." ... The quoted language from Stachura is dicta, and we do not believe that it modifies the explicit holding of Smith.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages; due process does not categorically bar them.

Logan v. Drew · filed 1992-03-05

Moreover, the due process clause does not pose a per se prohibition against punitive damages in § 1983 cases.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against a municipal official sued individually despite the municipality’s immunity from such damages.

New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc. v. Meyers · filed 2006-03-22

Although a municipality itself is immune from a claim for punitive damages, see City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 258-68, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981), that immunity does not extend to a municipal official sued in his individual capacity, see, e.g., Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. at 55-56, 103 S.Ct. 1625.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc. v. Meyers · filed 2006-03-22

Punitive damages may be awarded 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 others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983).

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a school district.

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District · filed 2006-03-30

Therefore, punitive damages are not available against defendant school district under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent or recklessly or callously disregards federally protected rights.

Siggers-El v. Barlow · filed 2006-04-10

“A jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless disregard or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” ... The Court finds that the jury’s award of punitive damages was supported by the evidence presented at trial.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages only when the defendant's conduct meets a threshold of egregiousness.

Kolstad, Carole v. Amer Dent Assn · filed 1998-05-08

In short, then, we construe Smith as establishing a thresh- old requirement of egregiousness for the imposition of puni- tive damages in s 1983 cases--a requirement which Congress transferred largely intact to s 1981a(b)(1).

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against a municipality.

Blaskiewicz v. County of Suffolk · filed 1998-12-07

It is obvious from the four corners of the original complaint that the plaintiff was seeking punitive damages which are not recoverable from a municipality.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against municipalities or officials sued in their official capacities.

Ware v. City of Buffalo · filed 2001-06-26

Plaintiff explicitly agrees that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities in section 1983 actions, and impliedly agrees that punitive damages against Sixt and Keane, in their official capacities, cannot be recovered. Therefore, the court dismisses the punitive damages claims against the City of Buffalo, the Fire Department, and Sixt and Keane, in their official capacities.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages only upon a showing of evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Shidler v. Moore · filed 2006-08-09

Punitive damages are available in § 1983 cases only upon a showing of evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against a state official sued in an individual capacity, but the request fails when the plaintiff fails to state a claim.

Brooks v. Alameida · filed 2006-08-11

Punitive damages may be awarded to a plaintiff in a § 1983 action against a state official acting in an individual capacity. ... Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, his prayer for punitive damages must also fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs prayer for punitive damages as to all of his claims.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages without actual damages when the defendant acts with evil intent or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Brown v. Chicago Transit Authority Retirement Plan · filed 2006-08-24

It is true that punitive damages are recoverable under § 1983 even in the absence of actual damages if the defendant’s conduct was “motivated by evil intent or involv[ed] reckless or callous indifference to the federally-protected rights of others.”

Section 1983 permits a punitive damages claim to proceed when material facts about the defendant’s motivation remain disputed.

Barclay v. Michalsky · filed 2006-09-12

The record discloses issues of material fact on the issue of defendants’ motivation. Thus, to the extent defendants sought summary judgment on the punitive damages prayer for relief as to plaintiffs § 1983 claim, it is denied.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Casillas-Diaz v. Palau · filed 2006-09-19

A jury may levy punitive damages in a section 1983 action when a 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 others." Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983); see also Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14, 25-26 (1st Cir. 1999).

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against municipalities or defendants sued in their official capacities.

DORSETT-FELICELLI, INC. v. County of Clinton · filed 2006-09-26

Indeed, punitive damages are not available against municipalities, or against defendants in their official capacities.

Punitive damages under § 1983 require evil intent or callous indifference.

Allen v. Stalder · filed 2006-10-03

Nor has Allen shown the “evil intent” or “callous indifference” required to obtain punitive damages.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against officials sued in their individual capacities, but not against municipalities or officials sued in their official capacities.

Wilson v. Maricopa County · filed 2006-11-09

Punitive damages under § 1983 are not recoverable against a municipality or an officer sued in his official capacity, but are recoverable against officials sued in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against officials sued in their individual capacities.

Glosson v. Morales · filed 2007-01-08

Punitive damages under § 1983 are recoverable against officials sued in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits a jury to award punitive damages for a deliberate violation of constitutional rights.

McCloud v. Fortune · filed 2007-01-25

When, as here, there is a deliberate violation of constitutional rights, a jury properly may, if it chooses, award punitive damages.

Punitive damages in a § 1983 action require evidence of evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights; retaliatory motive alone does not warrant a jury instruction.

Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana · filed 2007-01-25

The Supreme Court has held that “a jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 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 others.” ... There is not sufficient evidence in the record to establish that Peck acted with the heightened culpability, above and beyond a retaliatory motive, to justify an instruction on punitive damages.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against state officers sued in their individual capacities.

Murphy v. Franklin · filed 2007-03-28

Although punitive damages are not available against state officers being sued in their official capacities, see Colvin v. McDougall, 62 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.1995), they are available against such officers being sued in their individual capacities under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Therrien v. Town of Jay · filed 2007-04-06

The punitive damages standard in a § 1983 action is whether 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 others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983); Bisbal-Ramos v. City of Mayaguez, 467 F.3d 16, 25 (1st Cir.2006).

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against municipal defendants.

Heckensweiler v. McLaughlin · filed 2007-05-21

The Supreme Court has held that punitive damages against municipalities are not allowed under § 1983. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the demand for punitive damages under Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims as it pertains to the municipal Defendants.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Wilson v. Aquino · filed 2007-05-24

“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 others.’”

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against an individual defendant when the defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Foxworthy v. Buetow · filed 2007-06-22

Thus, for Foxworthy’s punitive damages claim to survive summary judgment, he must show that there is at least a material fact in dispute regarding whether a reasonable factfinder could decide that Bue-tow was motivated by evil motive or intent or acted in reckless or callous indifference to Foxworthy’s federally protected rights. ... A reasonable factfinder could conclude that Buetow at least acted with callous indifference to Foxworthy’s federally protected rights. ... For this reason, the Court denies summary judgment on Foxworthy’s punitive damages claim.

Punitive damages under § 1983 require evidence of evil motive or reckless indifference to federally protected rights.

Strepka v. Sailors · filed 2007-07-02

Here, the complete lack of evidence in the record, either direct or circumstantial, as to Defendants’ evil motives or reckless indifference to Strepka’s federally protected rights, defeats the claim for punitive damages as a matter of law.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against a prison guard for a wilful and unjustified attack on an inmate.

Vargas v. Correa · filed 1976-03-03

Additionally, in that the Court finds Correa’s attack to have been wilful and unjustified, the plaintiff is awarded $300.00 in punitive damages. This award is intended both to punish the defendant and to deter other prison guards from acting similarly.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against the District of Columbia.

Elkins v. District of Columbia · filed 2007-12-12

As a matter of law, a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages against the District on a § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality.

Karchnak v. Swatara Township · filed 2008-02-11

It is clear, however, that Plaintiffs demand for punitive damages against Swatara Township fails as a matter of law. “[A] municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Child v. City of Portland · filed 2008-03-04

“Punitive damages are proper under section 1983 ‘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 others.’ ”

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a public school board.

M.G. v. Crisfield · filed 2008-03-05

Thus, as to the Board, Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages pursuant to Section 1983 and Section 504 are dismissed.

Section 1983 allows compensatory damages against municipalities but bars punitive damages against them.

Harrison v. Chalmers · filed 2008-03-07

Although a municipality may be liable for compensatory damages in § 1983 actions, it is immune from punitive damages under that statute.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against municipal officials in their official capacities.

Iglesias v. Wolford · filed 2008-03-18

Accordingly, municipal officials are not liable for punitive damages in their official capacities under either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or North Carolina law.

Punitive damages under § 1983 require an evil motive or reckless indifference to federally protected rights.

Ramirez v. Guinn · filed 2008-03-24

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s request for punitive damages because he failed to establish that defendants acted with an evil motive or reckless indifference to Ramirez’s federally protected rights.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against an individual defendant whose malicious or wanton conduct deprives a person of constitutional rights.

Romie Vetters, Jr. v. James Berry and Al Phifer · filed 1978-04-14

The individual conduct of Berry and Phifer as established by the evidence on the trial of this cause connected each one as a wrongdoer in his contacts with plaintiff and warranted the jury in returning verdicts on the issue of punitive damages.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against state defendants only when they act in bad faith or from an improper motive.

Duncan v. Poythress · filed 1981-04-28

An award of punitive damages in a section 1983 action, however, is proper only if the state defendants acted in bad faith or from an improper motive.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality under the rule applied here.

Danielson v. Dupage Area Vocational Education Authority · filed 1984-04-19

DAVEA’s final argument addressed to the federal claims concerns punitive damages under § 1983. (Plaintiffs do not deny that Title VII and the Equal Pay Act prohibit punitive damages.) The court finds that plaintiffs have not alleged facts that would allow them to recover punitive damages. Hence, the claims for punitive damages are stricken.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Davignon v. Hodgson · filed 2008-04-24

Under § 1983, a jury may levy punitive damages when a 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 others."

Section 1983 permits punitive damages for civil rights violations when the defendant acts willfully, intentionally, recklessly, or with callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Murphy v. Gilman · filed 2008-04-24

Gordon states that the rule for awarding punitive damages is “when the defendant wilfully and intentionally violates another’s civil rights or when the defendant acts with reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.”

Punitive damages under § 1983 require that the defendant almost certainly knew the conduct was wrongful and subject to punishment.

Soderbeck v. Burnett County · filed 1985-01-04

This point can be made clearer by noting that a primary purpose (we think the primary purpose) of punitive damages, both generally and in section 1983 cases, is to deter. ... We may therefore set it down as a condition of awarding punitive damages that the defendant almost certainly knew that what he was doing was wrongful and subject to punishment.

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against municipalities.

Kokinda v. Breiner · filed 2008-05-06

Punitive damages under § 1983 are not available against municipalities.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a local governmental body.

McCrimmon v. Kane County · filed 1985-02-20

Defendants correctly observe that after City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2762, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981), a local governmental body is immune from punitive damages under Section 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Lusk v. Roberts · filed 1985-06-04

Punitive damages may be assessed 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 others.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality.

Triplett v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT · filed 2008-06-16

Furthermore, a plaintiff may not recover punitive damages against a municipality under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Thompson v. City of Portland · filed 1985-10-22

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that punitive damages are available in section 1983 actions when the defendant’s conduct involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.

In § 1983 suits with no compensable injury, a punitive damages ratio above single digits generally does not violate due process.

Mendez v. County of San Bernardino · filed 2008-08-27

Ratios in excess of single digits in § 1983 suits therefore will not generally violate due process when the victim suffers no compensable injury.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages under federal standards when the defendant acts with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

French v. Hines · filed 2008-10-03

Applying County Executive II, we cannot say that the availability of punitive damages under § 1983 is not a “part of the § 1983 remedy.” It follows that Maryland courts ordinarily must apply federal standards in § 1983 actions with respect to punitive damages.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against individual officers but not municipalities.

Sundholm v. City of Bettendorf · filed 1986-06-18

Punitive damages may be sought only against the individual officers, not the City of Bettendorf. A municipality is not liable for punitive damages under the act.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when the defendant acts with reckless or callous indifference to the plaintiff’s rights or with evil intent.

Perry v. Larson · filed 1986-06-23

A jury is permitted to assess punitive damages in a § 1983 action if the defendant’s conduct involves reckless or callous indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, or if the action is motivated by evil intent.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality.

Rk Ex Rel. Skb v. Yale Schools, Inc. · filed 2008-10-30

Likewise, the Supreme Court has made clear that “a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” The Board’s motion to dismiss any claim for punitive damages against it will accordingly be granted.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when sufficient evidence of misconduct supports submitting them to a jury; an appellate court reviews the award for excessiveness.

McGee v. Hester · filed 1987-06-18

In his complaint, McGee requested $250,000 in punitive damages for violation of his constitutional rights under section 1983 and $250,000 in punitive damages for intentional interferences with his business under state law. ... We therefore review Hester's claim that the jury's punitive damage award was excessive under both federal and Arkansas law. ... This Circuit holds that an appellate court should review a jury verdict for excessiveness only when the amount creates plain injustice or a monstrous or shocking result. ... Sufficient evidence of ill-conduct existed in the present case to merit sending the issue of punitive damages to the jury. ... We thus uphold the jury's punitive damage award of $50,000.

Section 1983 punitive damages require allegations that the defendant acted with evil intent or reckless indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Johnson v. TX Bd of Cr Justice · filed 2008-12-02

Johnson also fails to allege facts which would support a claim for punitive damages because his allegations do not show that the defendants’ actions, which implemented prison policies, were motivated by evil intent or that the defendants acted with reckless indifference to Johnson’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against counties.

Buckley v. BARBOUR COUNTY, ALA. · filed 2008-12-15

Counties are immune from punitive damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages for a constitutional violation even when no compensatory or nominal damages are awarded.

Nazario v. Rodriguez · filed 2009-01-30

In light of the nearly universal authority counseling against applying the Kerr-Selgas rule to section 1983 actions, we hold that the Kerr-Selgas rule does not (and henceforth will not) apply to such cases. Thus, the district court's decision to accept and enforce the unchallenged punitive damages award was entirely proper.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against municipal entities, including school districts.

Wolfe Ex Rel. W.W. v. Fayetteville, Arkansas School District · filed 2009-02-26

Municipal entities, including school districts, are immune from punitive damages under § 1983.

Municipalities generally cannot be held liable for punitive damages under § 1983.

Chapman v. Executive Committee of the United States District Court · filed 2009-03-31

Except for limited exceptions not relevant here, a municipality may not be held liable for punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against local governmental entities sued through officials in their official capacities.

Morris v. Crow · filed 1993-06-23

Similarly, local governmental entities, like the Polk County Sheriffs Office, are immune from punitive damage claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when the defendant’s conduct is sufficiently malevolent, outrageous or abusive to justify more than compensatory damages.

James N. Brown, Cross-Appellant v. Bullard Independent School District, Cross · filed 1981-03-25

The Supreme Court noted in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257, n.11, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1049, n.11, 55 L.Ed.2d 252, that punitive damages may be awarded in appropriate cases under Section 1983. ... We have again examined the record under the Boeing standard, and viewing the evidence and making reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that there is simply no evidence of the type of malevolent, outrageous or abusive conduct which justifies more than compensatory damages.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Feldman v. Philadelphia Housing Authority · filed 1994-12-22

In a § 1983 action: [A] jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages * * * 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 others.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive or treble damages against municipalities.

Odal Typographers, Inc. v. City of New York · filed 1983-03-25

Finally, we grant that branch of the City’s motion that seeks to have stricken from the amended complaint those portions claiming punitive and treble damages from the City. In City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247, 267, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2759, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981), the Supreme Court of the United States held such damages unavailable as against municipalities under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Searles v. Van Bebber · filed 2001-05-14

The legal standard for punitive damages in cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is well established. Punitive damages are available only for conduct which is “shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983).

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against defendants sued in their individual capacity when they act with evil motive or reckless indifference to federally protected rights.

Robinson v. Clemons · filed 1998-01-09

In Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983), the Supreme court clarified that punitive damages are available against a defendant only in his individual capacity in cases brought pursuant to § 1983, and then only when the defendant is motivated by “evil motive or intent” or acts with “reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” ... The potential for punitive damages against defendants Clemons and Simmons in their individual capacity remains.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a prison official’s deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm amounts to reckless disregard of that risk.

Mejias v. Roth · filed 2009-06-15

As discussed, sufficient evidence supported the jury's determination that Faunce acted with deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the imposition of punitive damages was not improper.

Section 1983 permits nominal damages for a constitutional violation without proof of actual damages; punitive damages may also be awarded without actual damages.

Baker v. Wilkinson · filed 2009-07-02

The rule in the Fifth Circuit is that in the absence of proof of actual, compensatory damages, a plaintiff who has been deprived of his constitutional rights may only collect nominal damages. However, the Fifth Circuit also adheres to the general rule that a punitive award may stand in the absence of actual damages where there has been a constitutional violation.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality or an official sued in an official capacity.

Strickland v. Mahoning Township · filed 2009-07-08

The court finds that punitive damages are not available against the individual defendants in their official capacities. As explained above, a suit against an individual in her official capacity is a suit against the municipality. Since a municipality cannot be liable for punitive damages, neither can an individual sued in her official capacity.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages only upon a showing of evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Kyle II v. Detective Lawrence Patterson, Officer Andrew Bell, Officer Porter · filed 1999-11-10

Punitive damages are available in sec. 1983 cases only upon a showing of "evil motive or intent, or . . . reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983).

Section 1983 generally bars punitive damages against municipalities; an outrageous violation alone does not overcome that bar unless taxpayers are directly responsible for it.

Docket No. 99-7550 August Term, 1999 · filed 2000-06-15

To the extent that footnote 29 creates an exception to Newport's general rule against punitive damages, therefore, it is not an exception for particularly outrageous abuses, as Ciraolo would have it, but rather an exception for outrageous abuses for which the taxpayers are directly responsible.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against municipalities.

Committee for Immigrant Rights v. County of Sonoma · filed 2009-07-31

The Supreme Court has also held that, with respect to federal claims brought under § 1983, municipalities are immune from punitive damages. ... To the extent plaintiffs’ prayer for relief seeks punitive damages against the County, County Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipal board, including through a claim that the board must indemnify an employee for them.

Anderson v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago · filed 2001-10-15

The same result applies in the instant case. As Judge Nordberg explained in Burns v. Cineplex Odeon, 1996 WL 501742 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 29, 1996), the Supreme Court has declared that municipalities are immune from punitive damages under civil rights laws and, while federal or state law may waive that immunity, Illinois has reaffirmed it for local public entities via the Tort Immunity Act.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with reckless or callous disregard of, or indifference to, others’ rights and safety.

Mitchell v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2009-08-31

Punitive damages in § 1983 cases are available where the defendants have acted with a “reckless or callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights and safety of others.” ... Thus, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order full disgorgement via punitive damages or equitable restitution.

A § 1983 plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages against an officer without facts sufficient to support that remedy.

Hodge v. Williams · filed 2009-09-14

Hodge has not alleged facts sufficient to support recovery of punitive damages against Williams.

A § 1983 plaintiff need not use the words “evil” or “recklessly or callously indifferent” to seek punitive damages when the complaint alleges facts supporting such an award.

Wallace v. Jackson · filed 2009-09-28

This argument is unavailing; the words ‘evil’ and ‘recklessly or callously indifferent’ are not talismanic. The complaint contends that Jackson behaved reprehensibly and with deliberate indifference to Wallace’s medical needs and sets forth adequate alleged facts to support that contention. Therefore, the claim suffices under Lambert and Jackson’s motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages will be denied.

Punitive damages under § 1983 require an evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

McGhee v. Biamont · filed 2009-10-09

Punitive damages are appropriate in an action under § 1983 only if the challenged 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 ... others.”

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Ojeda-Rodríguez v. Zayas · filed 2009-10-22

Punitive damages may be awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “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 others.”

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against a municipality.

Malone v. ECONOMY BOROUGH MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY · filed 2009-11-09

Section 1983 precludes punitive damages against a municipality. ... Thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint seeks punitive damages against the EBMA, said damages are not available.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Cabral v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2009-11-12

The Supreme Court has held "that a jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 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 others." ... Cabral's indifference was reckless and callous to Porter's protected free speech rights because Cabral admitted she knew such rights were protected.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against an officer whose conduct shows reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Swofford v. Eslinger · filed 2009-11-30

Punitive damages may be awarded against an officer under § 1983 when a defendant’s conduct was “motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves a reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” ... The Court finds Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against an officer whose misconduct is wanton or willful or motivated by ill will or a desire to injure.

Hendrickson v. Cooper · filed 2009-12-21

We do not find $125,000 excessive. “Punitive damages are appropriate when the defendant acted wantonly and willfully, or was motivated in his actions by ill will or a desire to injure.”

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when an officer acts with evil motive or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Arbuckle v. City of Chattanooga · filed 2010-03-08

The court concludes that Plaintiff has not created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether she is entitled to punitive damages for her Section 1983 claim relating to the alleged unlawful search of her home. There is no evidence showing the evil motive or the reckless and callous indifference of Officers Buttry and Campbell. Therefore, the punitive damages claim under Section 1983 will be DISMISSED.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when an individual defendant acts with reckless or callous disregard for others’ rights, beyond the violation itself.

Sallitt v. Stankus · filed 2010-05-26

The law provides that punitive damages cannot be awarded in a section 1983 case unless there is more than a mere violation of a right justifying compensatory damage. The defendant must have acted with a certain state of mind, that is reckless or callous disregard for the rights of others.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against individual defendants despite Arizona’s statutory bar on punitive damages for public employees.

Braillard v. Maricopa County · filed 2010-05-27

Far from being narrowly tailored, the application of § 12-820.04 suggested by these defendants would preclude punitive damages for most, if not all, § 1983 claims, which require that the defendant have acted “under color of state law or authority.” ... Section 12-820.04 is therefore inconsistent with the purpose of § 1983 and must “give way to federal common law rules that permit recovery.”

Section 1983 permits a jury to award punitive damages only for evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Concepción Chaparro v. Ruiz-Hernández · filed 2010-06-03

Punitive damages in a § 1983 civil rights action can be granted at the jury's discretion only if "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 others."

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality or county government.

Smith v. Shelby County, TN · filed 2010-06-14

Nevertheless, it is well-settled that a municipality or county government is “immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Section 1983 punitive damages awards are reviewed for excessiveness under federal common law when no constitutional challenge is raised.

Mercado-Berrios v. Cancel-Alegria · filed 2010-06-30

"[T]he measure of damages in section 1983 actions is a matter of federal common law." ... We therefore limit our review to whether the award is excessive as a matter of federal common law.

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against municipalities.

Robinson v. City of Harvey, Ill. · filed 2010-08-06

Municipalities are not subject to punitive damages in suits under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages, but they are not appropriate in every case.

Couch v. Jabe · filed 2010-09-01

Although punitive damages are available under § 1983, they are not appropriate here.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights; sufficient evidence of that state of mind must go to the jury.

Kohler v. Englade · filed 2010-09-29

Applying this standard to the facts of this case, and to the threshold for punitive damages under Section 1983, we hold Kohler met his burden to avoid a JMOL. Specifically, we hold, drawing all factual inferences in Kohler’s favor, he has presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that, under Williams v. Kaufman County, 352 F.3d at 1015, Johnson, in seeking a warrant against Kohler, not only lacked probable cause but also acted with “subjective consciousness of a risk of injury or illegality and a criminal indifference to civil obligations.”

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against a state actor only for reckless, callous, or malicious conduct.

Eckman v. LANCASTER CITY · filed 2010-09-30

Punitive damages are available in Section 1983 cases only when a state actor is reckless, callous, or malicious.

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against a municipality.

Nimkoff v. Dollhausen · filed 2010-11-19

In general, punitive Section 1983 damages against a municipality are barred by law.

Section 1983 permits a punitive damages claim to proceed when a jury could find that the defendant was recklessly indifferent to the plaintiff’s rights.

Ross v. Lichtenfeld · filed 2010-12-06

Finally, Lichtenfeld argues that Ross is not entitled to punitive damages under section 1983 because she has presented no evidence that Lichtenfeld was motivated by evil intent or that he acted with reckless or callous disregard for Ross’s rights. Def.’s Memo. 25. This argument, however, hinges entirely on the resolution of disputed factual matters that are properly left to a jury. A reasonable jury could conclude that Lichtenfeld decided to terminate Ross in retaliation for her protected speech concerning fraud and theft, and from such a determination a jury could reasonably conclude that Lichtenfeld was recklessly indifferent to Ross’s rights. Summary judgment on this issue was thus denied.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when the defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Joyce v. Town of Dennis · filed 2011-01-04

Punitive damages may be awarded for violations of § 1983 and Chapter 151B 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 others.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality.

Smith v. Borough of Dunmore · filed 2011-01-05

Consequently, because Dunmore remains the only defendant for the retaliation claim, and because “a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981), there is no proper defendant from which Smith can claim punitive damages.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality.

D.O. ex rel C.O. v. Borden · filed 2011-03-31

Defendants also contend that the Borough cannot be held liable for punitive damages under Section 1983. ... Plaintiffs do not contest this assertion. Therefore, any claim for punitive damages against the Borough under Section 1983 is dismissed.

Section 1983 liability for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need does not, by itself, justify punitive damages; callous indifference must also be shown.

Schaub v. VonWald · filed 2011-04-26

A finding of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, while establishing liability under § 1983, does not necessitate a finding of callous indifference warranting punitive damages.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against individuals whose conduct is motivated by evil intent or shows reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Smith v. Lanier · filed 2011-04-27

Punitive damages against individuals in a § 1983 action are available if their 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 others.”

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against public entities.

Atkinson v. County of Tulare · filed 2011-05-18

Public entities are immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality, including a school district.

Travis v. Deshiel · filed 2011-06-09

It is well settled that punitive damages are not permitted against municipalities unless expressly authorized by statute. The case law on this subject is clear. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) (holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a municipality under §§ 1981 or 1983); ... Thus, to the extent Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against the School District of Philadelphia on its federal civil rights claims or its Pennsylvania tort claims, punitive damages are barred. We will therefore dismiss all claims for punitive damages against the School District of Philadelphia.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages for a constitutional deprivation only when a state official acts with evil motive or intent or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Michel v. Levinson · filed 2011-07-12

A plaintiff is ... not entitled to damages on a § 1983 claim for a deprivation of constitutional rights absent a showing that a state official‟s conduct “is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent” or “involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.”

Section 1983 permits a former prisoner to seek nominal and punitive damages for an alleged constitutional violation during incarceration.

Kuperman v. Wrenn · filed 2011-07-14

Indeed, as a former prisoner alleging a constitutional violation that occurred during his incarceration, Kuperman may obtain nominal and punitive damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a public school district.

Long v. Fulton County School District · filed 2011-08-04

Furthermore, it is well settled that punitive damages are not available against a government entity. ... FCSD, a public school district, undoubtedly falls within the scope of this rule.

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against a county.

Stern v. Hinds County, Mississippi · filed 2011-08-11

In addition, Stern cannot recover punitive damages from Hinds County under § 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights.

Troy D. v. Mickens · filed 2011-08-25

A plaintiff may recover punitive damages in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the defendants’ actions were done with “malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.”

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against an individual defendant whose conduct shows evil motive or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Atkinson v. New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority · filed 2011-09-30

In an action under § 1983, a jury may assess punitive damages 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 others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983). In alleging that Bulmer repeatedly and continuously subjected her to sexual gestures, comments and touching, Atkinson has pled facts sufficient to support a plausible claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, Bulmer’s motion to dismiss Atkinson’s punitive damage claim as against him in his individual capacity under § 1983 is denied.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against an individual officer whose conduct was motivated by evil intent or showed reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Adams v. Kraft · filed 2011-10-25

To recover punitive damages against an individual officer in a § 1983 case, a plaintiff must show that the officers’ conduct is “motivated by evil motive or intent” or “involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” ... Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against an individual defendant who acts wantonly and willfully or is motivated by ill will or a desire to injure.

G.G. v. Grindle · filed 2011-11-23

“Punitive damages are appropriate when the defendant acted wantonly and willfully, or was motivated in his actions by ill will or a desire to injure.” Hagge v. Bauer, 827 F.2d 101, 110 (7th Cir. 1987). Grindle has put forth no basis for invalidating the jury’s determination that her conduct justified the imposition of punitive damages.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against defendants sued in their official capacities.

Acosta v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Offi · filed 2011-11-23

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Acosta’s claim for punitive damages because Acosta did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether individual defendants acted with the requisite level of culpability to justify a punitive damages award, see Dubner v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001), and Sheriff Arpaio and Sergeant Nicholas are immune in their official capacities from punitive damages, see Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527 (9th Cir. 1996).

Punitive damages in a Section 1983 case require a finding of evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Williams v. Harmon · filed 2011-12-02

In determining whether to award punitive damages in a § 1983 case, the factfinder must, as a threshold matter, find that a "'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 others.'" Id. (quoting Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983)).

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality.

O'Gorman v. City of Chicago · filed 2012-01-27

Lastly, the City correctly argues that O’Gorman cannot seek punitive damages against a municipality. The Supreme Court has held that “a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” ... The claim for punitive damages is dismissed.

Section 1983 sets no fixed amount of damages, so courts reviewing punitive awards for excessiveness compare them with awards in analogous cases.

Wallace v. Poulos · filed 2012-03-22

Courts addressing § 1983 cases have noted that Congress did not specify a “quantum of damages” when drafting that section. ... Therefore, when using this guidepost to determine whether a defendant had fair notice about the amount of the award, the appropriate benchmark is the amount of punitive damages awarded in analogous cases.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when the defendant acts with evil motive or intent or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Robert K. Dee, Jr. v. Borough of Dunmore · filed 2012-04-06

Punitive damages may be awarded 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 others.” ... Applying the relevant factors, we will uphold the District Court’s decision to vacate the punitive damages award.

Punitive damages on a Section 1983 claim must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Currie v. Cundiff · filed 2012-05-10

For the reasons stated, when this Case proceeds to trial, punitive damages will only be available as to Counts 1-3, Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims. Punitive damages will have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality.

K.S.S. v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners · filed 2012-05-15

Despite Plaintiffs assertions to the contrary, the Supreme Court has established that municipal governments may not be sued for punitive damages under § 1983. ... As such, Plaintiff is precluded from recovering any punitive damages from the County.

Punitive damages under § 1983 are unavailable against a municipality absent facts suggesting its taxpayers were responsible for the constitutional violation.

Lefande v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-05-21

Indeed, the Daskalea opinion affirmed the rule from Fact Concerts that, in § 1983 cases, punitive damages are only available against municipalities in the extreme situation where a municipality’s taxpayers bear responsibility.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against officials sued in their official capacities.

Young v. Kisenwether · filed 2012-08-10

Furthermore, Plaintiff concedes that punitive damages may only be recovered from Defendants Kisenwether and Altmiller in their individual capacities and not their official capacities. See, e.g., Turner v. City of Phila., 22 F.Supp.2d 434, 440 (E.D.Pa.1998) (“punitive damages are not available against a municipality or individuals in them official capacity for violations of § 1983”). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs request for punitive damages against Defendants in their official capacities will be granted.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipality.

Isler v. New Mexico Activities Ass'n · filed 2012-09-20

The law is settled that “a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a municipal corporation.

Daniels v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-09-30

The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation, see D.C. Code § 1-102 (2001), and is, therefore, immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Punitive damages on a § 1983 claim may be reduced when they exceed the highest amount the court finds sustainable.

Payne v. Jones · filed 2012-10-03

Jones was found liable under both federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and the New York State law of battery, and the jury awarded $300,000 in punitive damages to cover both claims without distinction. ... Despite differences in the verbal formulations as between the New York statute and federal case law, we need not make two distinct rulings because, whether examined under the federal standard or New York’s standard, we conclude the punitive damages award was excessive under either formulation to the extent it exceeded $100,000.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil intent or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Montoya v. Shelden · filed 2012-10-12

The Montoyas are demanding punitive damages, as an element of the claim for punitive damages, and they must prove to the jury that Shelden’s and Lovato’s actions were motivated by evil intent, or their conduct involved reckless or callous indifference to the Montoyas’ constitutional rights.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages for conduct motivated by evil intent or involving callous or reckless indifference to federally protected rights.

Moulton v. DeSue · filed 2012-10-16

“Punitive damages are appropriate under § 1983 ‘when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves callous or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of others.’ ” Wright v. Sheppard, 919 F.2d 665, 670 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983)). Viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants’ actions exhibited reckless indifference. Therefore, the Court denies the motions for summary judgment as to this issue.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil intent or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Thomas v. Kelly · filed 2012-10-23

Punitive damages are available in a § 1983 action -“ ‘when a defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by an evil motive or intent or when it involved reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.’ ” Lee v. Edwards, 101 F.3d 805, 808 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983)).

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against individual officers for conduct motivated by evil intent or showing reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Shroyer v. United States · filed 2012-10-23

“[A] jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 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 others.” ... Considering the facts in dispute and the evidence before the Court and viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could conclude that the Defendants acted in reckless indifference to the Plaintiffs right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from an unreasonable seizure. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Defendants’ request for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages.

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against municipalities or other governmental entities.

Gallentine v. Housing Authority · filed 2013-01-22

Punitive damages against a municipality and other governmental entities are not recoverable under § 1983.

Punitive damages awarded on a Section 1983 claim are subject to review for excessiveness and may be reduced through remittitur.

Payne v. Jones · filed 2013-02-15

Jones was found liable under both federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and the New York State law of battery, and the jury awarded $300,000 in punitive damages to cover both claims without distinction. ... Despite differences in the verbal formulations as between the New York statute and federal case law, we need not make two distinct rulings because, whether examined under the federal standard or New York’s standard, we conclude the punitive damages award was excessive under either formulation to the extent it exceeded $100,000.

Punitive damages under § 1983 require conduct motivated by evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Derrol Kirby, III v. Roth · filed 2013-07-25

Third, the district court did not abuse its significant discretion when it determined that officers reasonably feared for their safety when they deployed their Tasers and thus were not motivated by evil motive or intent, nor did they act with reckless or callous indifference to Kirby’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against a municipality.

O'Gorman v. City of Chicago · filed 2013-07-25

Lastly, the City correctly argues that O’Gorman cannot seek punitive damages against a municipality. The Supreme Court has held that “a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against municipalities.

Barletta v. Rilling · filed 2013-09-26

Punitive damages may not be awarded either, because municipalities are immune from punitive damage awards under section 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages for evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights; egregious conduct is not required.

Shrey v. Kontz · filed 2013-11-07

There need not be egregious conduct; to the contrary, the jury need only to have found that Kontz acted with evil motive or intent or was recklessly or callously indifferent to the Fourth Amendment rights of the Shreys.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages only when the defendant acts with evil intent or reckless or callous indifference to constitutional rights.

Simmons v. Hays County Sheriff's Dept · filed 2014-01-15

Under our precedent, “punitive damages may be awarded [to a civil rights plaintiff] only when the defendant’s conduct is motivated by evil intent or demonstrates reckless or callous indifference to a person’s constitutional rights.”

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Tretola v. County of Suffolk · filed 2014-02-19

The question is not whether the jury was justified in awarding punitive damages for clearly they were. ... A jury may “assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 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 protective rights of others.” DiSorbo v. Hoy, 343 F.3d 172, 186 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Section 1983 permits punitive damages against individual defendants whose conduct shows evil intent or reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Esposito v. Quatinez · filed 2014-03-05

In a Section 1983 action against individual defendants, punitive damages may be awarded “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 others.” ... Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable trier of fact could find that defendant acted with callous indifference to plaintiffs rights in failing to examine plaintiff, and the Court will not preclude plaintiff from seeking punitive damages at this stage.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages even when the jury awards no compensatory damages, if the defendant’s conduct warrants punishment.

Milfort v. Prevete · filed 2014-03-14

The fact that the jury found that no compensatory damages were justified does not nullify their finding that punitive damages were.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a governmental entity such as a school board.

Delouise v. Iberville Parish School Board · filed 2014-03-25

Indeed, this Court has already recognized that “[a]s a matter of law[,] punitive damages under § 1983 are not available against a governmental entity such as [a] School Board.” ... Thus, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and all punitive damages claims under Section 1981 or Section 1983 against the IPSB are dismissed.

Section 1983 does not extend municipalities’ immunity from punitive damages to private corporations acting under color of state law.

Revilla v. Glanz · filed 2014-03-25

Based upon all of these authorities, the Court is unable to apply the punitive damages immunity afforded municipalities under the City of Newport case to CHC, which is a private corporation.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against a school district.

Eilenfeldt ex rel. J.M. v. United C.U.S.D. 304 Board of Education · filed 2014-03-25

Second, Defendants correctly assert that the School District is not subject to punitive damages under § 1983.

Section 1983 does not allow punitive damages against a municipality.

Ameduri v. Village of Frankfort · filed 2014-03-31

Punitive damages are not available against a municipal defendant in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when the evidence supports a finding that defendants recklessly disregarded constitutional rights.

Rosen v. Wentworth · filed 2014-04-09

This evidence could allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude Defendants recklessly disregarded Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. As a result, the question of punitive damages was properly put to the jury.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Tretola v. County of Nassau · filed 2014-04-16

The question is not whether the jury was justified in awarding punitive damages for clearly they were. ... A jury may “assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 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 protective rights of others.”

Section 1983 permits nominal or punitive damages when a prison official deliberately exposes an inmate to substantial danger, even if the inmate has not been physically harmed.

Turner v. Pollard · filed 2014-05-01

Although compensatory damages are unavailable, summary judgment was also inappropriate because, given the substantial danger to which Swiekatowski allegedly exposed Turner, Turner may be eligible for nominal or punitive damages.

Section 1983 permits punitive damages when a defendant acts with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Carroll v. Township · filed 2014-05-13

Punitive damages may be awarded 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 others.” ... There is simply no basis for an award of punitive damages, and therefore the punitive damages awards will be DISMISSED.

Section 1983 does not permit punitive damages against municipalities.

Seldomridge v. Penn State Hershey Medical Center · filed 2014-06-04

Defendants correctly observe that “punitive damages are not available in suits against municipalities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” ... Accordingly, the claim for punitive damages against Lancaster County is unavailing.