[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 26, 2010
No. 09-13554 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-21507-CV-WMH
ROBERT A. CHRISTIANSEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR CHARLES J. MCRAY,
Corrections & Rehabilitation,
MS. GRANNUM, Director,
Patient Care Corrections Health Services,
JACKSON HEALTH SYSTEMS,
TIMOTHY R. RYAN, Director,
Corrections and Rehabilitation,
S. MCKENZIE, RN, Supervisor/CHS
Manager, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 26, 2010)
Before BIRCH, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert A. Christiansen, a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s
determination on damages in his pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his need to
have his broken denture repaired. After defendants Urbina and McKenzie failed to
answer Christiansen’s complaint, the district court entered a default judgment
against both. In granting the default judgment, the court ordered Urbina and
McKenzie to repair Christiansen’s broken denture. The court denied Christiansen
other monetary damages, finding that he failed to establish a basis for monetary
relief. After Christiansen filed his notice of appeal, we sua sponte dismissed
Christiansen’s appeal to the extent it attacked the district court’s award of dental
care, but allowed the appeal to go forward on the issue of damages. In his brief,
Christiansen asks that we award him $1,000,000 in compensatory damages,
$1,000,000 in punitive damages, any “ongoing dental care needed,” and all other
“appropriate” relief.
As an initial matter, the defendants/appellees did not file a notice of appeal
or a cross appeal. Nevertheless, on appeal they argue that the district court erred in
entering a default judgment against them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1).
2
Because “an appellate court may not alter a judgment to benefit a nonappealing
party,” even assuming that the district court erred in entering a default judgment
against Urbina and McKenzie, we do not have jurisdiction to address this issue.
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 2559, 2564, 171 L.Ed.2d
399 (2008); see also El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473, 479-82,
119 S.Ct. 1430, 1434-36, 143 L.Ed.2d 635 (1999) (applying the rule in the civil
context).
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, we “review the district court’s
findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Farese v.
Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In general, we
“show a leniency to pro se litigants not enjoyed by those with the benefit of a legal
education.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369
(11th Cir. 1998).
“[C]ompensatory damages under § 1983 may be awarded only based on
actual injuries caused by the defendant and cannot be presumed or based on the
abstract value of the constitutional rights that the defendant violated.” Slicker v.
Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225, 1229 (11th Cir. 2000). Consequently, when a plaintiff
does not provide any “proof of a specific, actual injury caused by the defendants’
conduct, [the plaintiff] is not entitled to compensatory damages.” Kelly v. Curtis,
3
21 F.3d 1544, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994). Moreover,
[g]enerally, in order to recover compensatory damages a plaintiff must
meet not only the burden of proving the fact of damage but also the
burden of proving a basis for a determination of the amount of
damage. Although this burden of proving the amount of damage is
not an onerous one, it must still be met.
Stewart & Stevenson Servs., Inc. v. Pickard, 749 F.2d 635, 648 (11th Cir. 1984).
Finally, in order to receive punitive damages in § 1983 actions, a plaintiff must
show that the defendant’s conduct was “motivated by evil motive or intent” or
involved “reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of
others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 1640, 75 L.Ed.2d 632
(1983).
Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error
in the district court’s conclusion that Christiansen failed to establish a basis for a
monetary award. Moreover, because we have already held that he lacks standing to
appeal the district court’s award of dental care, we do not have jurisdiction to
review that decision.
AFFIRMED.
4