Britt v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 25 July 2006
• Docket Number: Docket No. 05-0641-PR.
• Citation: 457 F.3d 264
• Parties: Don Juan BRITT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria E. GARCIA, Department of Correction, Classification and Movement Analysis, Terry David, D.O.C.'s Classification and Movement, Superintendent John McGinnis, Superintendent Hans Walker, Auburn Correctional Facility, Correction Counselor Robert Mitchell, Auburn Correctional Facility S.H.U., Superintendent Charles Griener, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Defendants, Commissioner Glenn S. Goord of the Department of Corrections, Deputy Superintendent for Security, William Connolly, in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

457 F.3d 264

Don Juan BRITT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria E. GARCIA, Department of Correction, Classification and Movement Analysis, Terry David, D.O.C.'s Classification and Movement, Superintendent John McGinnis, Superintendent Hans Walker, Auburn Correctional Facility, Correction Counselor Robert

Mitchell, Auburn Correctional Facility S.H.U., Superintendent Charles Griener, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Defendants,

Commissioner Glenn S. Goord of the Department of Corrections, Deputy Superintendent for Security, William Connolly, in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 05-0641-PR.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: December 1, 2005.

Decided: July 25, 2006.

Jean Lin, Assistant Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Michael S. Belohlavek, Deputy Solicitor General, of counsel), New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants.

Paul E. Kerson, Leavitt, Kerson & Duane, (John F. Duane, Ira R. Greenberg, of counsel), New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before CARDAMONE, LEVAL, and SACK, Circuit Judges.

SACK, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee Don Juan Britt, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, New York, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against various New York State Department of Correctional Services and correctional facility officials. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to protect him from assaults by other inmates. Britt further alleged that the defendants conspired to violate his civil rights. He also asserted several state-law claims. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found defendants-appellants Glenn S. Goord and William Connolly liable to Britt for conspiracy to violate his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and for negligence under New York law. The jury assessed both compensatory and punitive damages against Goord and Connolly.

Subsequently, the district court (Lawrence M. McKenna, Judge) granted Goord and Connolly's post-verdict motion to dismiss Britt's negligence claim. The court also ordered a new trial on the issue of punitive damages. The court denied Goord and Connolly's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, however, rejecting their claim of qualified immunity and their contention that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for the jury to find them liable to Britt under section 1985(3).

Goord and Connolly now bring an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds. Goord and Connolly also urge us to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's decision that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support liability under section 1985(3). We conclude that we have jurisdiction to decide this appeal insofar as the appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the basis of the jury's answers to questions posed on a special verdict sheet, but we also conclude that the appellants' argument is without merit. We decline to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to decide the remainder of the appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's order in part and dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

On October 21, 1998, while serving a state sentence for a felony conviction at Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, New York, plaintiff-appellee Don Juan Britt was assaulted by another inmate, who slashed Britt's head, neck, and back. Trial Tr., Apr. 27, 2004, at 78-80. He was rushed to St. Agnes Hospital, where he received multiple stitches to close his wounds. Id. at 80-82. Upon his return to Sing Sing, he was placed in protective custody but was allegedly attacked at least once more by another inmate. Id. at 82-84. On December 31, 1998, Britt's prison cell was allegedly set on fire by a person or persons unknown. Trial Tr., Apr. 28, 2004, at 284-86.

On March 5, 1999, Britt, acting pro se, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking compensation for his injuries. An amended complaint followed on April 12, 1999.

On April 25, 2003, after Britt had obtained counsel, he filed a second amended complaint. In it, he alleged that the defendants had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from assaults by other inmates. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29-30. He also alleged that the defendants had conspired to violate his civil rights, id. ¶¶ 31-33, and asserted several state-law claims, id. ¶¶ 34-44. Subsequently, the district court dismissed Britt's claims against all defendants other than Glenn S. Goord, commissioner of corrections, William Connolly, deputy superintendent of Sing Sing, and Jacqueline Hood, a corrections officer. See Britt v. Dep't of Corr., 2004 WL 868371, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2004), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6940, at *1.

On April 26, 2004, the case proceeded to a jury trial against the three remaining defendants in their individual capacities on five of Britt's claims that the defendants were liable to him: (1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the Eighth Amendment; (2) under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for conspiring to violate the Eighth Amendment;¹ (3) under New York law for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) under New York law for negligence; and (5) under New York law on a theory of respondeat superior.

At the close of evidence, the district court dismissed Britt's respondeat superior claim. The defendants moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), for judgment as a matter of law on all of the plaintiff's remaining claims, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support them. See Trial Tr., Apr. 30, 2004, at 673-78. The district court reserved decision. See id. at 681.

On May 3, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hood on all claims, but found Goord and Connolly liable to Britt under section 1985(3) and for negligence under New York law. The jury assessed compensatory damages against Goord and Connolly in the amounts of $100,000 and $50,000, respectively, and punitive damages in the amounts of $5 million and $2.5 million, respectively. The jury decided in favor of Goord and Connolly on all other claims.

Before judgment was entered, Goord and Connolly renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). They argued, inter alia, that they were entitled to qualified immunity.² Defendants' Mem. Of Law In Support Of Post-Trial Motions, dated June 2, 2004, at 22-26. The defendants also argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of liability under section 1985(3), and that the negligence verdict against them was barred by New York Correction Law § 24 and Baker v. Coughlin, 77 F.3d 12 (2d Cir.1996). Defendants' Mem. Of Law In Support Of Post-Trial Motions, dated June 2, 2004, at 8-16. The defendants moved in the alternative for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Id. at 28-31. They also moved for a reduction of the jury's punitive damages award. Id. at 31-36.

In a memorandum and order dated January 4, 2005, the district court dismissed Britt's negligence claim. Britt v. Connolly, No. 99 Civ. 1672, slip op. at 8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2005) (filed under seal). The court denied the remainder of the defendants' motions except that for remittitur as to the jury's punitive damages award. Id. at 4-21. The court concluded that punitive damages "should not exceed $200,000 in the case of defendant Goord and $100,000 in the case of defendant Connolly" and ordered a new trial on the issue of punitive damages unless Britt agreed to remit all punitive damages in excess of those amounts. Id. at 21, 25.³ When Britt declined to do so, the district court ordered a new trial on that issue.

Goord and Connolly appeal from that portion of the district court's order denying their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds. Goord and Connolly also contend that we should exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's decision that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to find them liable under section 1985(3).

DISCUSSION

I. Denial of Qualified Immunity

A. Standard of Review

To the extent that we have jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court's denial of qualified immunity, we review the district court's decision de novo. Palmer v. Richards, 364 F.3d 60, 63 (2d Cir.2004). We apply the same standard in reviewing the district court's denial that the district court was required to apply. Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F.3d 146, 154 (2d Cir.2001). "Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when `a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.'" Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co., 283 F.3d 33, 43 (2d Cir.) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1019, 123 S.Ct. 539, 154 L.Ed.2d 427 (2002).

B. Qualified Immunity Doctrine

"The doctrine of qualified immunity offers protection for `government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" McClellan v. Smith, 439 F.3d 137, 147 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (alteration incorporated)).

C. The Appellants' Argument

The appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the basis of the jury's answers to the first three questions posed...