Girbes-Pierce v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 09 April 2019
• Docket Number: 16-CV-7510 (JLC)
• Parties: THOMAS GIRBES-PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

THOMAS GIRBES-PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

16-CV-7510 (JLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 9, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge.

Thomas Girbes-Pierce brought this lawsuit alleging that two officers of the New York City Police Department, Police Officer Craig Sikorski and Lieutenant Ian Rule, violated his civil rights under federal and state law by subjecting him to excessive force when they arrested him on September 2, 2015. Following a three-day trial, a jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Girbes-Pierce against Sikorski, in which it awarded him $1.00 in nominal damages in lieu of compensatory damages and no punitive damages. A separate verdict was entered in favor of Rule. Now before the Court are Sikorski's motion for entry of judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity, and Girbes-Pierce's motions for judgment on his state law battery claim and for a new trial on damages. For the reasons set forth below, Sikorski's qualified immunity motion is denied and accordingly, Girbes-Pierce's motion for judgment on his battery claim is granted. However, Girbes-Pierce's motion for a new trial on damages is denied.

I. Background

On October 29, 2018, trial commenced on Girbes-Pierce's excessive force claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleged that Officer Sikorski and Lieutenant Rule used excessive force when they arrested him for allegedly buying drugs from a person on the street on September 2, 2015.¹ Girbes-Pierce's arrest and the disposition of the underlying charges against him were not at issue at trial. During the trial, the jury heard two different accounts of what transpired when Girbes-Pierce was arrested by Sikorski and Rule.

According to Girbes-Pierce's version of events, the incident began when his arm was grabbed and he thought he was being mugged, and only when he was pepper-sprayed and handcuffed did he realize that Sikorski and Rule were police officers. See Trial Transcript ("Tr.") at 74:22-75:19.² He testified that before he was pepper-sprayed he was hit, punched, pushed, and kicked. Id. at 75:20-76:20. Girbes-Pierce also testified that he tried to protect himself during the incident by curling up in a fetal position, keeping his arms up to block his neck and face, and screaming "call the police." Id. at 75:7-15, 81:21-25.

With respect to his damages, Girbes-Pierce testified that he experienced back and shoulder pain and had "big bumps on [his] head"; he also stated that he "couldn't sit or stand up in the [police] precinct because of the pain." Id. at 82:13-18. He explained that during "[t]he first couple of days [the pain] was as severe as the first day," and lasted "four to five weeks or so." Id. at 83:2-6. Girbes-Pierce also testified that the physical and emotional pain affected his ability to work for "several months," alleging that he "couldn't get out of bed," "struggled getting up and down" from where he lived "on [the] top [floor] of a four-story walkup in Soho," and "was just really scared to leave [his] apartment" because "[he] was attacked and violated and [ ] didn't feel safe in the city anymore." Id. at 84:5-85:9, 86:5-8. Girbes-Pierce further testified that the incident "stripped away [his] confidence" and "ability to socialize." Id. at 86:5-10. He explained that he sought therapy and was treated by doctors after the incident. Id. at 83:21-22, 85:11-14.

According to Sikorski and Rule's version of events, they approached Girbes-Pierce after observing what they believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction with a known drug dealer, identified themselves as police officers because they were in plain clothes, and repeatedly asked to speak with him. Id. at 137:4-12, 161:7-15, 162:2-6, 162:14-25, 223:23-224:2, 224:11-17, 230:8-20. They testified that Girbes-Pierce ignored their requests, pushed Rule, tried to get away, attempted to run, flailed his arms, refused to be handcuffed, and kicked Rule. Id. at 163:1-10, 175:15-176:13, 178:6-23, 179:17-180:13, 231:10-234:16, 241:6-242:7. Sikorskitestified that the force he used to get Girbes-Pierce under control—pepper-spraying him in the face—was not excessive but necessary to get him in handcuffs. Id. at 198:9-199:23, 209:12-21.

On October 31, 2018, after nearly six hours of deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Girbes-Pierce on his excessive force claim against Sikorski, but not as to Rule. See Verdict at 1, Dkt. No. 72. The jury awarded Girbes-Pierce no compensatory damages, but instead gave him $1.00 in nominal damages and no punitive damages. Id. at 2. At that point in the trial, the Court introduced the concept of qualified immunity to the jury and stated: "even though [ ] you have found that [Girbes-Pierce] has proven his claim for excessive force as against Officer Sikorski, Officer Sikorski still may not be liable to [Girbes-Pierce] if he is entitled to what is called qualified immunity . . . ." Tr. 443:24-444:3. The Court further explained that the question of qualified immunity was one for the Court to decide but that the jury played a role in its determination. Specifically, the jury was instructed that it would be presented with a series of factual questions, known as special interrogatories, and its responses would aid the Court in its legal determination regarding qualified immunity. Id. 444:10-22.

The Court submitted special interrogatories to the jury the following day to develop the factual record and aid the Court in its determination as to whether Sikorski was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The first special interrogatory asked: "What act or acts of excessive force did you find that defendantSikorski committed in this case?" to which the jury responded: "Pepper-spraying plaintiff when he was already confined." Special Interrogatory, Dkt. No. 74. In light of this response, the Court submitted seven additional special interrogatories to the jury. The interrogatories and jury responses are reproduced below:

The jury hereby unanimously makes the following findings:

1. Prior to using any force against plaintiff, did defendant Sikorski reasonably believe that plaintiff pushed Lieutenant Rule on September 2, 2015?

YES X NO ___

2. Prior to using any force against plaintiff, did defendant Sikorski reasonably believe that plaintiff refused to cooperate with police officer instructions on September 2, 2015?

YES X NO ___

3. Prior to using any force against plaintiff, did defendant Sikorski reasonably believe that plaintiff was attempting to escape from him on September 2, 2015?

YES X NO ___

4. Did defendant Sikorski reasonably believe that plaintiff resisted his attempts to handcuff him on September 2, 2015?

YES X NO ___

5. Did defendant Sikorski reasonably believe that plaintiff kicked a police officer on September 2, 2015?

YES ___ NO X

6. Did defendant Sikorski reasonably believe that plaintiff was flailing his arms during his attempts to handcuff him on September 2, 2015?

YES X NO ___

7. Before pepper spray was used, did defendant Sikorski reasonably believe that plaintiff was trying to get off the ground on September 2, 2015?

YES ___ NO X

Special Interrogatories, Dkt. No. 75.

In sum, the jury found that prior to using any force, Sikorski reasonably believed that Girbes-Pierce pushed Rule, refused to cooperate with police officer instructions, and attempted to escape. Tr. at 477:17-478:5. It also found that Sikorski reasonably believed that Girbes-Pierce flailed his arms and resisted his attempts to handcuff him. Id. at 478:6-9, 14-17. However, the jury did not find that Sikorski reasonably believed that Girbes-Pierce kicked a police officer or was trying to get off the ground before he was pepper-sprayed. Id. at 478:10-13, 18-22.

Now before the Court are the parties' post-trial motions. On November 19, 2018, Girbes-Pierce moved for a new trial on damages under Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the jury's award of $1.00 in nominal damages is inconsistent as a matter of law with its finding that Sikorski used excessive force when he pepper-sprayed Girbes-Pierce "when he was already confined." Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion for New Trial on Damages ("Pl. Damages Mem.") at 1, Dkt. No. 84. On November 20, 2018, Girbes-Pierce also moved for anentry of judgment on his state law battery claim. See Plaintiff's Post-Trial Motion for the Court to Enter Judgment for the Plaintiff and Against Officer Sikorsk[i] and the City of New York on the Plaintiff's State Law Battery Claim ("Pl. State Law Mem."), Dkt. Nos. 86, 86-1.³

On November 30, 2018, Sikorski moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 based on qualified immunity, and for dismissal of Girbes-Pierce's state law battery claim. See Notice of Motion for Defendant Craig Sikorski's Post-Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 Based Upon Qualified Immunity, Dkt. No. 87; Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Craig Sikorski's Post-Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 Based Upon Qualified Immunity ("Def. Mem."), Dkt. No. 88.⁴ Sikorski argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because "it was objectively reasonable for [him] to pepper spray [Girbes-Pierce] under the circumstances that he faced and/or controlling precedent did not clearly establish the specific right at issue in this case." Def. Mem. at 7. He further contends that given his entitlement to qualified immunity, Girbes-Pierce's state law battery claim should not survive. Id. at 10.

On January 10, 2019, the parties submitted their respective opposition papers. See Plaintiff's Opposition ("Pl. Opp."), Dkt. No. 89; Defendants' Opposition ("Def. Opp."), Dkt. No. 90. In his opposition, Sikorski argues that the jury never should have answered the first special interrogatory: "What act or acts of excessive force did you find that defendant Sikorski...