Herndon v. Armontrout, s. 91-2848
| Decision Date | 02 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 91-2848,92-1534,s. 91-2848 |
| Citation | 986 F.2d 1237 |
| Parties | Demetrius HERNDON, Appellant, v. Bill ARMONTROUT, Donald Cline, McArthur Woodruff, Richard Childs, Lt. Malone, Lt. Spencer, Lt. McDaniels, Sgt. Salts, COI Shebert, John Does, Appellees. Samuel D. SMITH, Appellant, v. Donald CLINE, Richard Childs, Lt. Spencer, Billy Hinch, Michael Malone, Kenneth McDaniel, Lt. Lonnie Salts, David Schubert, James Welch, Rickie Stapp, John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James W. Riner, Jefferson City, MO, argued, for appellant.
Mark M. Tungesvik, Jefferson City, MO, argued (Bruce Farmer, on the brief), for appellees.
Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judges.
Demetrius Herndon and Samuel Smith appeal from the district court's 1 judgment entered upon jury verdicts against them in their actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For reversal, they argue that the district court erred in instructing the jury and in entering judgment upon jury verdicts not supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm.
On August 28, 1986, Herndon and Smith were inmates in the Special Management Facility of the Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City, Missouri. While in the prisoner dining hall for their noon meal, they were involved in a fight with prisoners Keith Brown and Robert Hill, who were armed with homemade knives. Sergeant Lonnie Salts was the first corrections officer to see the fight. He reported the fight on his two-way radio and then intervened. Lieutenant Dennis Spencer and Corrections Officer Russell Bellamy arrived at the fight in response to Salts's radio transmission. They removed Herndon and Smith from the dining hall and took them out through a doorway, referred to as the T-5 door, and up a flight of stairs to a landing, referred to as the T-3 landing. A short time later, Lieutenant Robert Malone and Captain Richard Childs also took Brown and Hill to the T-3 landing, where a second fight broke out. During these altercations, both Smith and Herndon were stabbed.
Herndon and Smith brought actions under section 1983 against several Missouri prison officials and corrections officers. They alleged that their injuries were the result of the defendants' failure to adequately protect them from attacks by other inmates, in violation of their constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The only issue submitted to the jury was whether Sergeant Salts, Lieutenant Spencer, Lieutenant Malone, Lieutenant Kenneth McDaniel, and Captain Childs adequately protected Herndon and Smith from the second altercation on the T-3 landing. The jury returned verdicts in favor of all five defendants.
Herndon and Smith raise two arguments on appeal. First, they contend that the court misstated the law in the verdict-directing jury instruction. Second, they argue that insufficient evidence exists to support the verdicts.
Herndon and Smith argue that the verdict-directing instruction misstated the law concerning the degree of protection prison officials must provide inmates. More specifically, citing Vosburg v. Solem, 845 F.2d 763, 765 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 928, 109 S.Ct. 313, 102 L.Ed.2d 332 (1988), they argue the verdict director failed to inform the jury that prisoners have a right to "reasonable protection" from attacks by other prisoners. The challenged instruction reads as follows:
On [plaintiff's name] claim for damages against defendant [name], your verdict must be for plaintiff [name] and against defendant [name] if you believe:
FIRST, that on or about August 28, 1986, in the vicinity of the T-3 landing, [plaintiff's name] was stabbed by inmates Hill or Brown or both of them; and
SECOND, that when inmates Hill and Brown were allowed to leave the dining room with knives defendant [name] should have known that Hill or Brown posed a threat of physical harm to [plaintiff's name]; and
THIRD, that as a result defendant [name] was deliberately indifferent to [plaintiff's name] constitutional right to receive protection from violent attacks by fellow inmates because either:
defendant intended to deprive plaintiff of protection from violent attacks by fellow inmates
or
defendant acted with reckless disregard of plaintiff's right to protection from violent attacks by fellow inmates;
and
FOURTH, plaintiff was thereby damaged.
"Reckless disregard of plaintiff's right to reasonable protection from violent attacks by fellow inmates" means that defendant knew of the danger to plaintiff and failed to respond reasonably to that danger.
Your verdict must be for defendant [name] if you do not believe each and every one of the above propositions.
Instruction No. 11 (emphasis added). Focusing on the language, "plaintiff's right to protection from violent attacks by fellow inmates," in the third element, Herndon and Smith argue that the instruction, as given, improperly allowed the jury to find for the defendants if they provided any degree of protection, without regard to whether the protection was reasonable.
When reviewing a challenge to a particular jury instruction, we determine whether the instructions, taken as a whole and viewed in light of the evidence and the applicable law, fairly and adequately submitted the issues in the case to the jury. See, e.g., Jones v. Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 844 F.2d 500, 504 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1092, 109 S.Ct. 2434, 104 L.Ed.2d 990 (1989). Because Herndon and Smith failed to object to the instruction at trial, we review the alleged deficiency in the instruction for plain error. Id. Plain error has occurred when the error so seriously affected the fairness or integrity of the trial that it produced a miscarriage of justice. Id.
It is true that the third element of the instruction refers only to Herndon and Smith's right to protection and by itself does not specify that the protection must be reasonable. The definitional section of the instruction, however, does refer to the plaintiffs' right to reasonable protection. It states that " '[r]eckless disregard of plaintiff's right to reasonable protection from violent attacks by fellow inmates' means that [the] defendant knew of the danger to plaintiff and failed to respond reasonably to that danger." In the light of these references to the "plaintiffs right to reasonable protection" from attacks and to the defendant's obligation to "respond reasonably" to the danger of attacks, we hold that the instruction, taken as a whole, did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Herndon and Smith next argue that the verdicts were not supported by sufficient evidence. In determining whether substantial evidence exists to support a verdict, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and give the prevailing party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Sanders v. St. Louis County, 724 F.2d 665, 667 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam). It is the jury's province and duty to resolve conflicts in testimony. See, e.g., Carter v. Jacobsen, 748 F.2d 487, 488 (8th Cir.1984). Again, because Herndon and Smith did not move for a directed verdict, 2 a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial, we review the claim of insufficient evidence for plain error. Id. (citing Shell v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 684 F.2d 537, 540 (8th Cir.1982)); Hollins v. Powell, 773 F.2d 191, 194 (8th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1119, 106 S.Ct. 1635, 90 L.Ed.2d 181 (1986). Examining the evidence through this lens, we find sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts in favor of all five defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolff v. Brown
...that the instruction be clarified in this regard, it was not plain error to give the instruction as worded. See Herndon v. Armontrout, 986 F.2d 1237, 1240 (8th Cir.1993) (plain error occurs only when an instruction "produced a miscarriage of Wolff next argues that the district court erred b......
-
Estwick v. City of Omaha, 93-1082
...light of the evidence and the applicable law, fairly and adequately submitted the issues in the case to the jury." Herndon v. Armontrout, 986 F.2d 1237, 1240 (8th Cir.1993). Although Verdict Form Number 1 did instruct the jury to complete it only if it found in favor of both defendants or a......
-
Norton v. Caremark, Inc., 92-2891MN
...that our consideration of the definiteness issue is limited to review for plain error only. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 51; Herndon v. Armontrout, 986 F.2d 1237, 1240 (8th Cir.1993) (appellate court should review jury instructions for plain error when party failed to object at Baxter and Caremark conc......
-
Randle v. Parker, s. 94-2476
...and viewed in the light of the evidence and applicable law fairly and adequately submitted the issue to the jury. Herndon v. Armontrout, 986 F.2d 1237, 1240 (8th Cir.1993). Prior to the Supreme Court's holding in Farmer v. Brennan, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), we h......