Dray was the official most responsible for keeping plaintiff segregated after the change in ECHC policy. Once again, he ignored ECHC policy by continuing to segregate her solely on the basis of her HIV status.
Even had HCM 23.00.00 never been written, however, the court would still find defendant Dray's actions in keeping plaintiff segregated in Female Delta to be reprehensible. This was not an administrative segregation done on a temporary basis, or done to protect the inmate. As the court found previously, confinement in Female Delta was qualitatively different from the punishment normally suffered by a person convicted of a crime. Id. at 738. Louise Nolley, a perfectly sane inmate, was placed in close contact with inmates who were suicidal and psychologically unstable. Mr. Dray acknowledged that inmates should not be subjected to the kind of psychological pressures that Louise Nolley was forced to endure. Id. But what made defendant's decision to segregate plaintiff so ignoble was its permanent duration, with no administrative review whatsoever.
In H.C. by Hewett v. Jarrard, 786 F.2d at 1089, the Eleventh Circuit found the superintendent of a juvenile detention center liable for punitive damages for shackling a juvenile to a bed in an isolation cell for seven days. As one of the reasons supporting the award, the court stated: "We further conclude that no reasonable person could believe that a juvenile detainee may be placed indefinitely in isolation and the 'key thrown away,' i.e.--no notice of charges or hearing provided the detainee." Id. The juvenile in H.C. by Hewett was confined for seven days. Louise Nolley was segregated for 310 days.
The court concludes that the decisions by Superintendent Dray to permanently segregate plaintiff, and to deny her access to the law library and church services, represented a reckless and callous disregard for her rights. These decisions were made under the guise of "safety," but defendant Dray had no medical evidence to support them. Moreover, for the most part, Mr. Dray was acting counter to ECHC's own policies. Accordingly, punitive damages will be awarded. The court must now decide an appropriate amount.
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in the amount of $ 100,000--part of which plaintiff is willing to have set aside for educational programs on HIV and AIDS at ECHC--for defendant Dray's indefensible conduct. In support of the size of this award, plaintiff cites Ismail v. Cohen, 899 F.2d 183, 187 (2d Cir. 1990), in which the Second Circuit restored a punitive damage award of $ 150,000 against a New York City police officer who made an unprovoked assault on a motorist, arrested him, and then lied at his trial. In upholding the award's size, the court cited two other Second Circuit decisions involving police misconduct where punitive damage awards of $ 175,000 and $ 185,000 were sustained. Id. In the second of these cases, O'Neill v. Krzeminski, 839 F.2d 9, 13 (2d Cir. 1988), which involved a beating by police, the Ismail court noted that "the facts of O'Neill involved no criminal prosecution or permanent physical or emotional injury." Ismail, 899 F.2d at 187.
Louise Nolley was not subjected to physical abuse during her stay at ECHC, but she was subjected to near-constant emotional and psychological trauma. In addition, she was deprived of access to the law library, which was the only resource she had to fight against the conditions at ECHC. See Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 775 F. Supp. 735, 754 (D. Del. 1991) (awarding punitive damages of $ 750 to inmate whose law-library access was limited). Finally, she was prevented from attending church services at a time when her faith in God was being tested. The court feels that $ 20,000 is an appropriate amount for punitive damages against defendant Dray.
III. ATTORNEYS' FEES
Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Defendants concede that plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action. Defendants also concede that the claims upon which plaintiff did not prevail were related to plaintiff's successful claims. The court agrees. There is no question that plaintiff has obtained excellent results in this case due to the conscientious and diligent efforts of her attorney. Accordingly, the court feels that plaintiff's attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983).
Defendants' main objection is that plaintiff's initial request included time spent on unrelated matters. Plaintiff has adjusted her request to eliminate this time. Her current request is for $ 82,527.00 in attorneys' fees and costs of $ 4,049.04. See Items 70, 85-86. The request for costs incorporates an agreement made between the parties at oral argument over the expert witness fees for Dr. Ross Hewitt. Defendants agreed to pay one-half of Dr. Ross's $ 2,450.00 fee. See West Virginia Univ. Hosp. v. Casey, 111 S. Ct. 1138, 1146 (1991). The court hereby awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $ 82,527.00 and costs of $ 4,049.04.
Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is denied. Defendants have promptly and adequately responded to this court's earlier decision.
Plaintiff is awarded compensatory damages of $ 9,300.00 against all defendants for the violation of her privacy rights. Of these damages, $ 6,200.00 is for plaintiff's emotional distress, and $ 3,100.00 is presumed damage.
Plaintiff is awarded compensatory damages of $ 38,750.00 against all defendants for the emotional distress she suffered as direct result of defendants' denial of her due process rights.
Plaintiff is awarded nominal damages of $ 1.00 against defendant Dray for the abridgment of her right of access to the courts.
Plaintiff is awarded compensatory damages of $ 350.00 against defendant Dray for the emotional distress she suffered from being denied access to congregate religious services.
Plaintiff is awarded punitive damages of $ 20,000.00 against defendant Dray for his actions in segregating plaintiff, and in denying her access to the courts and church services.
The total of the awards to plaintiff is $ 68,401.00.
Finally, plaintiff's attorney is awarded fees in the amount of $ 82,527.00 and costs in the amount of $ 4,049.04.
Judgment shall enter in accordance with this decision and order.
JOHN T. CURTIN
United States District Judge
Dated: August 20, 1992