Hicks v. Ferreyra

• Decision Date: 28 January 2022
• Docket Number: Case No.: PWG-16-2521
• Citation: 582 F.Supp.3d 269
• Parties: Nathaniel HICKS, Plaintiff, v. Officer Gerald L. FERREYRA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

582 F.Supp.3d 269

Nathaniel HICKS, Plaintiff,

v.Officer Gerald L. FERREYRA, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: PWG-16-2521

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division.

Signed January 28, 2022

Angela Groves, Pro Hac Vice, Yiyang Wu, Jennifer I. Klar, Jia Cobb, Pro Hac Vice, John Peter Relman, Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Andrew C. White, Edward P. Parent, Jodie Elizabeth Buchman, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, Baltimore, MD, Abigail E. Ticse, United States Attorneys’ Office, Baltimore, MD, Ilona Shparaga, Silverman Thompson Slutkin And White, Pikesville, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Paul W. Grimm, United States District Judge

This is a civil case involving a claim, referred to as a Bivens¹ claim, under which the Plaintiff, United States Secret Service Special Agent (now retired) Nathaniel Hicks, alleged a violation of his constitutional rights that took place on July 15, 2015 by Defendants, United States Park Police Officers Gerald Ferreyra and Brian Phillips. This case was tried before a jury on July 6-9, 2021, and a jury verdict was rendered in favor of Agent Hicks with an award of compensatory and punitive damages. Now pending before me is Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law nothwithstanding the jury's verdict, or for a new trial. Mot., ECF No. 165. I have reviewed all the filings² and find a hearing unnecessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND³

On July 15, 2015, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Plaintiff Nathaniel Hicks, then a United States Secret Service Special Agent, was on-duty and parked on the shoulder of Maryland Route 295 North (the Baltimore-Washington Parkway). Fourth Cir. Op. 3, ECF No. 99-2. Agent Hicks was sitting in his Secret Service issued vehicle, waiting to join a government motorcade for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Id. ; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24-26, ECF No. 49-1. Sometime after 6:00 a.m., United States Park Police ("USPP") Officer Gerald Ferreyra pulled his police cruiser behind Agent Hicks's vehicle and approached the vehicle. Mem. Op. 3, ECF No. 87. As he approached, Officer Ferreyra noticed a handgun located on the passenger's seat of Agent Hicks's vehicle. Id. Officer Ferreyra drew his weapon, after which Agent Hicks quickly identified himself, showed his Secret Service credentials, and explained that he was on duty, waiting to join the motorcade. Id.

Despite having no "reason to doubt the validity of [Agent Hicks's] credentials," Officer Ferreyra called for assistance, and USPP Officer Brian Phillips and Sergeant Timothy Wallace (Officer Ferreyra's supervisor) subsequently arrived on scene. Id. at 4, 15. About 40 to 59 minutes later, and well after the motorcade had passed (and with it, Agent Hick's ability to carry out his assigned escort duties), the Officers returned to Agent Hicks his credentials and weapon and told him that he was free to go. Fourth Cir. Op. 4.

This freedom to go was short-lived, however, as the record indicates that Officer Phillips pulled over Agent Hicks minutes after he left the scene of his first detention, and detained Agent Hicks a second time. Id. at 4-5. Officer Phillips claimed that Agent Hicks was driving erratically and illegally talking on his cellular telephone. Mem. Op. 6, ECF No. 87. Although Officer Phillips "concedes that he recognized [Agent] Hicks when he approached his car, he nevertheless demanded [Agent] Hicks's license and registration and detained him further before ultimately releasing him." Fourth Cir. Op. 5.

On July 8, 2016, Agent Hicks filed this Bivens action against Officers Ferreyra and Phillips. Compl., ECF No. 1. Defendants filed a dismissal motion seeking a finding of qualified immunity, which I denied in April 2017. ECF Nos. 37, 44. On July 28, 2017, Agent Hicks filed an amended complaint, adding a civil conspiracy cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Am. Compl. In November 2018, Defendants filed a summary judgment motion, ECF No. 78, which was denied with regard to the Bivens claim and qualified immunity, but granted with regard to the civil conspiracy charge, ECF No. 87. The ruling was appealed, and on July 14, 2020, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part, finding that Defendants had waived their argument that Agent Hicks lacked a cause of action under Bivens because the issue had not been raised before this Court, and dismissing Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments because they raised factual issues. Fourth Cir. Op. 2, 14, 17.

A jury trial was held from July 6-9, 2021. The jury found for the Plaintiff and made the following findings in a Special Verdict Form that included special interrogatories:

• Defendant Officer Ferreyra acted under color of law to violate Plaintiff Agent Hicks's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment during the first encounter with Agent Hicks.

• Officer Ferreyra's violation of Agent Hicks's constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment caused Agent Hicks to suffer compensatory damages for physical and/or emotional injury, which the jury awarded in the amount of $80,000 against Officer Ferreyra.

• Officer Ferreyra acted with malice or reckless indifference to Agent Hicks's federally protected 4th Amendment rights, and the jury awarded Agent Hicks punitive damages of $225,000 against Officer Ferreyra.

• Defendant Officer Phillips acted under color of law to violate Plaintiff Agent Hick's constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment during the first encounter with Agent Hicks and again when he stopped Agent Hicks during the second encounter.

• Officer Phillips’ violation of Agent Hicks's constitutional rights caused Agent Hicks to suffer compensatory damages for physical and/or emotional injury, which the jury awarded in the amount of $125,000 against Officer Phillips.

• Officer Phillips acted with malice or reckless indifference to Agent Hicks's federally protected rights, and the jury awarded Agent Hicks punitive damages of $300,000 against Officer Phillips.

• The jury also made factual findings by answering special interrogatories as follows:

1. That Agent Hicks appeared to be asleep to Officer Ferreyra when Officer Ferreyra first approached the front passenger side of the 2014 Chevrolet Impala?

__X___ YES _____ NO

2. That it appeared to Officer Ferreyra that Agent Hicks reached for the gun on the front passenger seat of the 2014 Chevrolet Impala in response to Officer Ferreyra knocking on the front passenger window?

_____ YES __X___ NO

3. That Officer Ferreyra knew that Agent Hicks was a Secret Service Agent once he properly verified his credentials?

__X___ YES _____ NO

4. That Officer Ferreyra followed a customary practice within U.S. Park Police when he requested a supervisor's presence on the scene?

_____ YES __X___ NO

5. That Officer Phillips left the scene of the first encounter before Agent Hicks?

__X___ YES _____ NO

6. That the totality of Officers Ferreyra and Phillips’ actions were reasonably necessary at the scene of the first encounter?

_____ YES __X___ NO

7. That after leaving the scene of the first encounter, Officer Phillips observed a motorist driving erratically and talking on his mobile phone as he traveled northbound on I-295?

_____ YES __X___ NO

8. That Officer Phillips realized it was Agent Hicks driving the vehicle prior to pulling the vehicle over?

__X___ YES _____ NO

9. That Officer Phillips realized it was Agent Hicks driving the vehicle prior to demanding Agent Hicks's license?

__X___ YES _____ NO

Special Verdict Form, ECF No. 150.

Defendants now move for this Court to (1) grant them qualified immunity; (2) enter judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the jury's verdict on the basis that Plaintiff's claim represents an improper extension of the remedy set forth in Bivens , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 ; (3) order a new trial due to prejudice that resulted from the admission of indemnification evidence during Plaintiff's rebuttal closing argument; and/or (4) order a new trial nisi remittitur on the grounds that the compensatory and punitive damages award was excessive and unsupported by the evidence. Mot., ECF No. 165.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) provides that a party may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law within twenty-eight days after entry of judgment, and a Court may:

(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;

(2) order a new trial; or

(3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). When considering a motion under Rule 50, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Gregg v. Ham , 678 F.3d 333, 341 (4th Cir. 2012). The court gives the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence, asks whether there is "substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's findings," but does not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Anderson v. Russell , 247 F.3d 125, 129 (4th Cir. 2001) ; Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing , 530 U.S. 133, 150-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ).

ANALYSIS

I. Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity "protects law enforcement agents from federal claims when they act in objectively reasonable reliance on existing law." Queen v. Prince George's Cnty. , 188 F. Supp. 3d 535, 541 (D. Md. 2016) (quoting Rockwell v. Mayor & City Council of Balt. , No. RDB-13-3049, 2014 WL 949859, at *8 n.10 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2014) ). It "balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

"The doctrine shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that...