## Facts

- Jeffrey Kemezy sued James Peters, a Muncie, Indiana police officer who was working as a bowling-alley security guard, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Kemezy alleged Peters wantonly beat him with a nightstick during an altercation at the bowling alley.
- A jury returned a verdict for Kemezy, awarding $10,000 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages.
- Peters appealed only the punitive damages award, arguing it was invalid because Kemezy introduced no evidence of Peters’s net worth to guide the jury in setting punitive damages.

## Issues

1. In a § 1983 action seeking punitive damages, must the plaintiff introduce evidence of the defendant’s net worth as a prerequisite to an award or amount of punitive damages?

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment, including the $20,000 punitive damages award.
- The court held the plaintiff has no burden to produce evidence of the defendant’s wealth or net worth to obtain punitive damages.
- The court treated evidence of wealth as potentially relevant to amount, but not a required element of the plaintiff’s punitive-damages case.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages serve to punish reprehensible conduct and deter similar conduct by the defendant and others.
- In the Seventh Circuit, a plaintiff seeking punitive damages is not required to present evidence of the defendant’s net worth.
- Because financial-condition information is typically within the defendant’s control, it is appropriate for the defendant to introduce wealth evidence if it supports a lower punitive award or an excessiveness argument.
- Trial courts need not impose a rigid net-worth evidentiary prerequisite that would add ancillary disputes and burdens unrelated to proving misconduct warranting punishment and deterrence.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a punitive damages award in a § 1983 excessive-force case and clarified that, although a defendant’s wealth may be relevant to the amount of punitive damages, the plaintiff is not legally required to introduce net-worth evidence; the defendant may offer such evidence to mitigate or challenge the award.


Kemezy v. Peters, 79 F.3d 33 (7th Cir. 1996)