## Facts

- In December 1998, Rebecca DiSorbo was arrested by Schenectady police officer Ronald Pedersen and taken to the police station.
- Rebecca alleged that, while in custody, Pedersen and other officers used severe physical force against her, including choking, slamming her into a wall, throwing her to the ground, and striking her while she was defenseless.
- Rebecca and her sister Jessica brought civil-rights and related state-law claims, including excessive force and abuse of process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and asserted municipal liability against the City of Schenectady.
- A jury found Pedersen liable to Rebecca for excessive force, battery, and abuse of process, and found the City liable under a municipal custom or practice theory.
- The jury awarded Rebecca $400,000 compensatory damages on the excessive-force claim, nominal damages on the abuse-of-process claim, and $1.275 million total punitive damages against Pedersen ($625,000 for excessive force; $650,000 for abuse of process).
- The district court ordered the City to indemnify Pedersen for both compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the punitive-damages award against Pedersen was unconstitutionally excessive under due process standards governing punitive damages.
2. Whether the City could be ordered to indemnify Pedersen despite a prior state-court judgment upholding the City’s refusal to indemnify him.

## Decision

- The court held the punitive-damages award, as entered, exceeded due process limits and required a substantial reduction (remittitur).
- The court vacated the indemnification order, holding a prior state-court judgment collaterally estopped Pedersen from relitigating entitlement to indemnification in federal court.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages violate due process if they are grossly excessive; courts assess excessiveness using guideposts that include: (1) reprehensibility, (2) the ratio between punitive damages and actual or potential harm, and (3) comparison to authorized civil or criminal penalties for similar misconduct.
- Even where misconduct is highly reprehensible and punitive damages are warranted, the total punitive amount must remain within constitutional limits when measured against the harm and comparable sanctions.
- Federal courts must give preclusive effect to a final state-court judgment on an identical issue when issue-preclusion requirements are met, including a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
- Municipal indemnification of an individual officer is a distinct question from municipal liability for the underlying constitutional violation and may be controlled by state law and prior state-court determinations.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required remittitur of a large punitive-damages award against a police officer as constitutionally excessive and vacated an order requiring municipal indemnification because a prior state-court judgment precluded relitigation of the indemnification issue.


DiSorbo v. Hoy, 343 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2003)