Levka v. City of Chicago, 748 F.

2d 421, 1984 181

Issue

Reasoning Rule Facts

Unconstitutional strip searches damages have ranged
from $3,300 to $112,000.
The award in this case is inconsistent with the prior
awards.
 In other cases, where the award > $30K there
were aggravating circumstances:
o $45K award: involved a cavity search
o $112K award: matrons were hostile,
ridiculed, shouted, taunted, and
threatened П, referred to her body
using foul and vulgar terms, forced her
repeatedly to squat and push her
fingers into herself, etc.
o $60K award: strip search was in front
of camera and in the presence of male
officers.
o $15K: woman asked to squat 5 times
even though she told matrons she was
still recovering from hysterectomy.
o $15K: probing by officers of vaginal
and rectal openings.
In this case, there are no aggravating circumstances.
 That Levka is 53 is not fraility.
The court is under the “distinct impression that jury was
in fact awarding punitive rather than compensatory
damages.”
In reviewing a jury verdict, the court will defer to
the jury’s judgment unless the award is
“monstrously excessive” or “shocks the judicial
conscience.”
 One factor is whether the award is out of
line compared to other awards in
similar cases.
Levka sued for violation of her civil rights because of the
strip search that she was subjected to by police officers under
Chicago’s SOP to subject arrestees to such strip searches.
She was awarded $50K for emotional trauma and distress,
mental and physical suffering, anguish, humiliation and
embarrassment but nothing for lost wages.
 (she worked as musician booking agent and claimed
that her job suffered because she couldn’t go out at
nights)
The search was done in private; out of the presence of male
officers; there was no cavity probe; and only visually. The
matrons were pleasant and matter-of-fact and never
threatening.
Still, she claimed that she was humiliated, debased, shocked,
stunned, horrified, sickened, and after wards was afraid to go
out at night, and even visited a psychiatrist.
4 witnesses corroborated her story that she suffered
continuous and deep emotional trauma.
The City’s witnesses said they’d seen her out at night.

One isolated visit to psychiatrist is inconsistent with

П’s contention that she was suffering from severe and
continuing trauma.

Held The evidence does not support a damage award of this magnitude. Remittitur of $25K.
П argues
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 1978 193
Issue Can substantial damages be awarded for denial of DPD even if П does not prove actual injury?

Reasoning Rule Facts

Rights, constitutional and otherwise, do not exist in a vacuum. Rights, constitutional and Carey was suspended from
 Their purpose is to protect persons from injuries to particular interests, and their contours are shaped by otherwise, do not exist in a school for 20 days without notice
the interests they protect. vacuum. and without an adequate hearing.
§ 1983 creates a liability similar to tort liabilities:
A person should be compensated He was re-admitted under a
Re Presumed: fairly for injuries caused by the temporary restraining order.
violation of his legal rights.
 It is not reasonable to assume that every departure from procedural due process, no matter what the He sought $3K in damages,
circumstances or how minor, inherently is as likely to cause distress as the publication of defamation per
CL courts traditionally have which he had no evidence of, for
se is to cause injury to reputation and distress.
vindicated deprivations of certain the due process violation. He
o Where the deprivation of a protected interest is substantively justified but procedures are
absolute rights that are not said that the damages should be
deficient in some respect, there may well be those who suffer no distress over the procedural
irregularities.
shown to have caused actual presumed just like in defamation
 Where a deprivation is justified but procedures are deficient, whatever distress a person feels may be injury through nominal sum of cases.
attributable to the justified deprivation rather than to deficiencies in procedure. $.
 no particular difficulty in producing evidence that mental and emotional distress actually was caused Under civil rights act, Damages
Substantial damages should be are not presumed: damages are
by the denial of procedural due process itself.
awarded to compensate actual compensatory and are awarded
o Distress is a personal injury familiar to the law, customarily proved by [*264] showing the injury or to deter or punish only for actual injury.
nature and circumstances of the wrong and its effect on the plaintiff.
malicious deprivation of rights.
Neither the likelihood of such injury nor the difficulty of proving it is so great as to justify awarding Damages based on the abstract
compensatory damages without proof that such injury actually was caused. value or importance of
Constitution rights are not
We have an interest in an ordered society: Nominal damages justified for the deprivation of process. permissible element of
compensatory damages in § 1983
cases.
Held Because the right to procedural due process is "absolute" and because of the importance to organized society that PDP be observed denial of procedural due process
should be actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury
 if, upon remand, DC determines that respondents' suspensions were justified, respondents nevertheless will be entitled to recover nominal damages not to exceed
$1.
Proc DP violated – but no award of damages since no evidence of any.
Appeal: DC should’ve heard evidence regarding damages; but no recovery if the school could show that he would have been suspended even proc followed
П argues  Substantial damages should be awarded under § 1983 for the deprivation of a Constitutional right whether or not any injury was caused.
 Every deprivation of procedural DP may be presumed to cause some injury.
 In addition to protecting against unjustified deprivation, the DP clause also guarantees the feeling of just treatment by the gov.
 Analogize to Defamation: injury presumed.
Δ argues П should have to prove the elements of prerequisites of damage like any other tort П.
 The purpose of an award of damages under § 1983 should be to compensate persons for injuries that are caused by the deprivation of Constitutional rights.
 Пs should be required to prove not only that their rights were violated but also that injury was caused by the violation.
Injury cannot be presumed to occur; Пs at least should be put to their proof on the issue, just like most tort actions.