been outrageous as well as sadistic, we will also award punitive damages in equal amount to the compensatory damages, or $ 10,000.
We find Officer Weikel's January, 1990 blows to Mr. Giroux's kidney area to have resulted in great pain and blood in Mr. Giroux's urine. Given the anguish, pain and humiliation associated with this conduct, as well as its consequences to Mr. Giroux's kidneys and urethra, we find damages of $ 5,000 against Officer Weikel are necessary to compensate Mr. Giroux.
Lastly, we find that although Officer Krieg's blows to Mr. Giroux to have been unprovoked and actionable within the teachings of Whitley and Hudson, they did not result in any serious physical injury, so we only award $ 1,000 for pain, humiliation, and mental anguish associated with that unprovoked but short-lived action.
Although the conduct we have found to have occurred in this case takes a page out of the late Miguel Pinero's Short Eyes, we stress again that we understand the difficulty that prison authorities face in maintaining discipline in an inherently difficult environment. As a general matter, therefore, and as the Supreme Court directed in Whitley, the behavior of corrections officers is entitled to deference from federal judges reviewing their actions long after the fact. Although we began this enterprise with an abundance of such deference, three days of testimony convinced us that the credibility battle was not a close one, and that beginning on August 31, 1989 Mr. Giroux was tormented by at least four of the defendants -- perhaps, for most of them, out of solidarity for their colleague, Edward Sherman. Notwithstanding our determinations herein, we are confident that the great majority of corrections officers at Graterford perform their difficult task with a full appreciation of, and respect for, the Eighth Amendment rights we have found four defendants to have ignored in 1989 and 1990.
We cannot conclude without noting that we were aided immeasurably in resolving this difficult case through the pro bono efforts of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, which made available the considerable talents of associates Benjamin Naitove and Jennifer Haltzman in the prosecution of Mr. Giroux's case. The work of this firm and these young lawyers in this case is in the best tradition of the bar, and we express our gratitude to them for it.
An appropriate Order follows.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 1992, after a non-jury trial in this matter and based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) contained in the foregoing Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Count II of the First Amended Complaint in this action is WITHDRAWN;
2. As to Count I, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of plaintiff William C. Giroux and against the following defendants in the stated amounts:
a. Edward Sherman in the amount of $ 10,000;
b. David Sherman in the amount of $ 10,000 compensatory damages and an additional $ 10,000 in punitive damages;
c. Robert Weikel in the amount of $ 5,000;
d. John Krieg in the amount of $ 1,000;
e. Costs taxed against the foregoing defendants;
3. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of defendants John Ligon, Timothy Wilson, Martin Earhart and David Springer and against plaintiff William C. Giroux;
4. Finding that William C. Giroux is the prevailing party in this action, his counsel shall, by December 18, 1992, submit affidavits and other documents in support of any claim to a reasonable attorney's fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
5. A hearing shall be held at 11:00 a.m. on December 23, 1992, to determine the reasonableness of plaintiff's counsel fee request.
BY THE COURT:
Stewart Dalzell, J.