Hoever v. Marks et al.

Throughout the summer of 2013, several correctional officers threatened Conraad Hoever with physical violence and death in retaliation for filing grievances.

One officer told him that officers had “been killing inmates here for a long time and nobody can do a damn thing,” and that if he continued to write grievances, the officers would “starve [him] to death.” Another told him that if he kept writing grievances, “the next 11 years [would be] a heartache” for him and that the officers would “make sure” that he stopped.

Mr. Hoever filed suit, without counsel, and presented his claim of First Amendment retaliation to a jury. After a three-day trial, during which the jury heard testimony from Mr. Hoever, the defendant officers, and witnesses who corroborated the threats, the jury returned a verdict in Mr. Hoever’s favor. Despite that finding, the jury was not permitted to award him any punitive damages because Eleventh Circuit precedent held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act barred punitive damages if the prisoner-plaintiff could not show physical injury. The jury thus awarded him only one dollar in nominal damages.

The parties cross appealed. On appeal, Mr. Hoever challenged the dismissal of his punitive damages claim. The panel followed circuit precedent and ruled against him. We joined the case and asked the en banc Eleventh Circuit to reconsider its longstanding precedent that barred punitive damages in cases like this one. A cross-ideological set of amici—including the ACLU, ACLU of Georgia, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Cato Institute, The Center for Access to Justice, Florida Justice Institute, Human Rights Defense Center, and Southern Center for Human Rights—supported our position. The en banc Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing, changed its position on punitive damages, and remanded Mr. Hoever’s case for further proceedings. Now, prisoner-plaintiffs incarcerated in the Eleventh Circuit can get punitive damage awards when their First Amendment rights are violated.