Baker v. Holman

• Decision Date: 13 June 2011
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:09CV36-A-D
• Parties: ESPERONDA BAKER PLAINTIFF v. ROGERS LEE HOLMAN, In His Individual Capacity DEFENDANT
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Mississippi

ESPERONDA BAKER

PLAINTIFF

v.ROGERS LEE HOLMAN,

In His Individual Capacity

DEFENDANT

CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:09CV36-A-D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: June 13, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Esperonda Baker, filed suit against former police officer, Rogers Lee Holman, in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law on February 12, 2009. Plaintiff alleges that Holman raped her while he was on duty as a police officer with the City of Okolona. A trial was held in October 2010, and the jury rendered a verdict finding: (1) that Holman did not commit a sexual assault against Plaintiff; (2) that Holman acted negligently in engaging in sexual intercourse with Plaintiff; and (3) that Plaintiff was entitled to "0.00" in damages. Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Alternatively for a New Trial on Damages [129].

Plaintiff sets forth three separate grounds in support of her Motion. First, Plaintiff contends that the Court erred in its jury instruction on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim. Second, Plaintiff states that the Court erred in excluding plaintiff's statements that she wished to take a polygraph examination. Third, Plaintiff urges that the jury's verdict is internally inconsistent. The Court considers each argument in turn.¹

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

A. Color of Law

Plaintiff first alleges that the Court erred in the jury instruction it gave on Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim, thus claiming that a new trial is necessary. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a trial court to grant a new trial based on that court's appraisal of the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the jury's verdict. FED. R. CIV. P. 59. The rule does not specify what grounds are necessary to support such a decision, but states only that the action may be taken "after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." FED. R. CIV. P. 59(a)(1)(A); see also Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610, 613 (5th Cir. 1985). A new trial may be granted, for example, if the district court finds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in the course of the trial. See, e.g., Eyre v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 755 F.2d 416, 420-21 (5th Cir. 1985); Westbrook v. Gen. Tire and Rubber Co., 754 F.2d 1233, 1241 (5th Cir. 1985); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 570-71 (5th Cir. 1982); Martinez v. Food City, Inc., 658 F.2d 369, 372-74 (5th Cir. 1981); Conway v. Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 610 F.2d 360, 363 (5th Cir. 1980).

The jury instruction given in this case reads as follows:

The Court instructs the jury that the right not to be sexually assaulted under color of state law is a clearly established federal constitutional right, and that being assaulted under color of state law violates the substantive due process clause of the United States Constitution.

A person acts under color of state law if he misuses power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law. Under color of law means under pretense of state law.

If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Defendant intentionally committed acts that violated one or more of Plaintiff's federal constitutional rights; (2) In doing so, Defendant acted "under color" of the authority of the State of Mississippi; and (3) Defendant's acts were the legal cause of Plaintiff's damages, then you must find for the Plaintiff, Esperonda Baker.

(emphasis added). Plaintiff asserts that the jury instruction should not have included a reference to whether the Defendant acted under color of state law. That is, Plaintiff asserts that this was error "since the evidence is clear that Defendant acted under color of state law." Plaintiff further asserts that the determination of whether one acted under color of state law is always a pure issue of law; thus, it should never be referenced in a jury instruction. The Court disagrees.

First, the above-italicized portion of the Court's instruction almost entirely mirrors the Fifth Circuit's pattern jury instruction for 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. To be clear, this pattern instruction does indeed state that the plaintiff must prove "the defendant(s) acted 'under color' of the authority of the State of _." Second, in United States v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407, 415-16 (5th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that a police officer acted under color of state law in arranging for the murder of an individual who had filed a complaint against him with the internal affairs division of the police department. Third, during an oral argument on this matter, Plaintiff relied on the case of United States v. Dillon, 532 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2008) for the proposition that a reference to under color of state law should not be contained within a jury instruction. Ironically, inDillon, the jury actually did consider whether the defendant was acting "under color" of law. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the Dillon court expressly held that "a reasonable jury could have found, considering the totality of the circumstances, that the[] [defendant's] statements were invocations of [the defendant's] authority." Id. at 387 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Zambrana-Marrero v. Suarez-Cruz, 172 F.3d 122, 128 (1st Cir. 1999) (jury question whether police officers acted under color of state law when beating and handcuffing civilian during altercation); Jones v. Gutschenritter, 909 F.2d 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (police officer accompanied landlord when he disconnected tenant's electrical service; jury question whether landlord acted under color of state law); Layne v. Sampley, 627 F.2d 12, 13 (6th Cir. 1980) ("Although in certain cases, it is possible to determine the question whether a person acted under color of state law as a matter of law, there may remain in some instances unanswered questions of fact regarding the proper characterization of the actions for the jury to decide.").

Plaintiff also contends that the evidence was "clear" in this case that the Defendant acted under color of state law. Thus, the Plaintiff claims that she should be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law:

If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may: (A) resolve the issue against the party; and (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue . . . In ruling on a renewed motion, the court may: (1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.

FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a)(1), (b).

In applying this standard, the court must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, drawing all reasonable factual inferences in that party's favor, and leave credibility determinations and the weighing of evidence to the jury. McCrary v. El Paso Energy Holdings, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 2d 649, 651 (N.D. Miss. 2002) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149-50, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000)). The court should grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law only when "the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of [the moving] party that the court believes that reasonable [jurors] could not arrive at a contrary verdict." Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969).

In considering a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict, the court must be "especially deferential" to the jury's findings. Brown v. Bryan Cnty, 219 F.3d 450, 456 (5th Cir. 2000). The Fifth Circuit's standard for evaluating a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict is whether "the state of proof is such that reasonable and impartial minds could reach the conclusion the jury expressed in its verdict." Am. Home Assur. Co. v. United Space Alliance, 378 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2004). A jury verdict must stand unless there is lack of substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the successful party, to support the jury's factual findings, or the legal conclusions implied from the jury's verdict cannot, in law, be supported by those findings. Id.

Section 1983 provides for a claim against anyone who "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State" violates another's constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A person acts under color of state law if he misuses "power 'possessed byvirtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.'" West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 101 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, 61 S. Ct. 1031, 85 L. Ed. 1368 (1941)). "Under 'color' of law means under 'pretense' of law." Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 111, 65 S. Ct. 1031, 89 L. Ed. 1495 (1945); see also Brown v. Miller, 631 F.2d 408, 411 (5th Cir. 1980) (explaining that an act of an officer, not taken with authority or under cloak of authority, will not be considered under color of state law "simply because the individual, although pursuing private aims, happens to be a state officer"). "Acts of officers performing their official duties are included whether they hew to the line of their authority or overstep it, but acts of officers in the ambit of their...