Hill v. City of Hammond
| Decision Date | 28 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2:10-CV-393-TLS |
| Parties | JAMES HILL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA and MICHAEL SOLAN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant City of Hammond's Motion for a New Trial, or in the Alternative an Order Altering or Amending the January 24, 2023 Judgment [ECF No. 375], filed on February 21, 2023. The Plaintiff filed a response on March 6, 2023 [ECF No. 384], and the Defendant City of Hammond replied on March 13, 2023 [ECF No 386]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
On November 22, 2022, a jury returned its verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. See ECF No. 347. The jury found that Defendant Michael Solan denied the Plaintiff his right to a fair trial by withholding impeaching and exculpatory information, see ECF No 350, Instr. 20, and that Defendant City of Hammond's failure to provide adequate training and/or supervision caused the violation of the Plaintiff's rights, see id. at Instr. 21. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $25 million in compensatory damages against both Defendants, and it awarded $500,000 in punitive damages against Defendant Solan. ECF No. 347. The jury returned its damages award after hearing evidence related to the Plaintiff's conviction, including the Plaintiff's own testimony on his personal background, his time in prison, and on his life after being released.[1]
The Plaintiff was 17 years old when he was arrested in 1980. He lived with his great grandmother, Eleanor Stokes, his great grandfather, two great aunts, and one great uncle. He was arrested outside of his English class during his junior year of high school. He played football for his high school and basketball on a special Olympics team. He had a son, who he had at age 15. The Plaintiff testified that he lived on the same block as his son, so he saw him every day. He testified that his relationship with his son “was good for the most part.”
In 1982, the Plaintiff was convicted of kidnapping and rape, for which he was sentenced to 35 years in prison. At around 18 or 19 years old, he was taken into the custody of Indiana State Prison. He testified that Indiana State Prison had a smell that he had never smelled before, that it was loud, that “[i]t was all things, and all those things [were] bad.” When asked, “What type of offenders were there,” the Plaintiff testified, “The worst of the worst.”
When asked if he experienced any trauma while at Indiana State Prison, the Plaintiff responded, “Which day?” He then recounted two experiences. In the first, an inmate in the cell next to him hit on the Plaintiff's wall and repeatedly told him to call the guard because he was in pain. The Plaintiff began calling for the guards and other inmates joined in. A few hours after the guards got the inmate out of his cell, he died from appendicitis. In the second experience, the Plaintiff heard another inmate “hollering, like they burning me up, they burning me up.” The Plaintiff got his mirror out to look and saw other inmates throwing gas on the inmate yelling. The Plaintiff testified that he saw “a big explosion” while the inmate continued to yell “they burning me up they burning me up.” The Plaintiff testified that inmates use mirrors to see what is going on outside their cells, but in this instance, the Plaintiff pulled his mirror back because he “didn't want to see that, [he] didn't want to get burned up for seeing that.”
While in Indiana State Prison, the Plaintiff was allowed to go out to the yard for recreation, but he testified that he did not participate in anything The Plaintiff testified that he observed beatings, murders, and stabbings. When asked if he personally observed anyone die, he responded that The Plaintiff was in Indiana State Prison for about nine years before he was transferred to Westville Correctional Facility.
The Plaintiff explained that in Indiana State Prison, there was a 40-foot wall, and he could only see the sky, whereas in Westville there was a fence. He had to “reprogram” himself upon being transferred to Westville because he was “coming from . . . a setting where there's so much violence” as opposed to Westville, which had “much more going on that's more or less normal.” In Indiana State Prison, the Plaintiff was in a cell where, if he stood up, his “hands could touch both walls and the ceiling.” The Plaintiff testified that in Westville, he lived in an “open dorm” with bunks on top of each other and “maybe over a hundred people on one side of the dorm and on the other side you got another hundred people.” He testified that in Westville, the other inmates were not as violent as in Indiana State Prison, “but they were violent.”
Upon release, the Plaintiff did not receive any counseling. When asked if he thought he needed it, he responded, “Of course I did.” He explained, He said he did not seek counseling because he “was trying to get on [his] feet.” The Plaintiff testified that he had to register as a sex offender and could not hold many jobs after coming home from prison because, “once they you know, they found out,” referring to his status, “they released me.”
When asked if anyone close to him had passed while he was in prison, the Plaintiff responded, “A lot of people had passed.” He testified that he could not go to the funeral services of his “on again off again girlfriend from elementary school to high school.” He explained that he wanted to, but “didn't want to be there in handcuffs.” He testified that his great grandmother, Eleanor stokes, who he lived with prior to his arrest and who visited him in Westville, passed two years before he was released from prison, and that he could not attend her funeral services.
The Plaintiff also testified that when he came home to Gary, Indiana, after being released from Westville, people knew about his conviction. He testified that for a long time, the people he knew and grew up with would not deal with him. He also testified that once home, he had trouble in his relationships with women because he “had serious trust issues.”
After the conclusion of the Plaintiff's testimony and the remainder of the evidence, the Court instructed the jury that if it were to find in favor of the Plaintiff and award compensatory damages, it must consider “[t]he physical and mental and emotional pain and suffering and loss of a normal life that Plaintiff has experienced and is reasonably certain to experience in the future.” ECF No. 350, Instr. 24. The jury deliberated and returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, including an award for compensatory damages in the amount of $25 million. ECF No. 347. In the instant motion, the Defendant City of Hammond argues the damages award is excessive and thus moves, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, for a new trial or an order altering or amending the Court's January 24, 2023 judgment.
The Seventh Circuit has ruled that “where an award is not rationally connected to the evidence,” a district court may “order a remittitur, if the plaintiff is willing to accept that remedy,” or “order a new trial limited to damages, if the plaintiff is not willing to accept a remittitur.” Int'l Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Chromas Techs. Can., Inc., 356 F.3d 731, 739 (7th Cir. 2004). “A remittitur is . . . in every case where it is employed, an alternative to a new trial which the court may order under Rule 59(a).” G.M. Garrett Realty, Inc. v. Century 21 Real Est. Corp., 17 Fed. App'x. 169, 173 (4th Cir. 2001).
When deciding whether to remit a damages award, the Court considers two factors: “whether the jury's verdict is rationally related to the evidence and ‘whether the award is roughly comparable to awards made in similar cases.'” Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 780-81 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Adams v. City of Chicago, 798 F.3d 539, 543 (7th Cir. 2015)).[2]
The Defendant City of Hammond argues the $25 million compensatory damages award is not rationally related to the evidence. It argues the award is not supported because the Plaintiff was never assaulted or injured while in prison, never sought mental health care or claimed a mental health disorder, described Westville as being like living in a dormitory, and was able to take courses and develop his skill as a barber in the prison system. The Defendant City of Hammond also argues that even though the Plaintiff missed a family member's funeral while in prison, the family member was elderly at the time of the Plaintiff's arrest. It argues that even though the Plaintiff could not participate in his son's life, he had little to no role in his son's life prior to his conviction and described little, if any, efforts to participate in his son's life after release. The Defendant City of Hammond argues the award is unsupported because the Plaintiff named no actual friends lost and no marital or romantic relationships affected.
The Plaintiff responds only to some of the Defendant City of Hammond's characterizations of the evidence. The Plaintiff argues that he was involved with his son prior to his conviction; he testified that his grandmother helped provide for his son. He also argues that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial