Jaramillo v. Arlene Hickson, Robert Ulibarri, Linda Hernandez, & Corr. Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIV No. 09-634 JCH/WDS |
| Parties | LISA JARAMILLO and KIM CHAVEZ, Plaintiffs, v. ARLENE HICKSON, ROBERT ULIBARRI, LINDA HERNANDEZ, and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and, In the Alternative, Motion for New Trial (Doc. 405). The Court having considered Defendants' motion, the parties' briefs, the trial transcript, and the relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, finds that Defendants' motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
The instant motion centers on the sole claim on which Plaintiffs prevailed at trial. Plaintiff Lisa Jaramillo successfully brought a count for retaliation against two employees of Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") -- Arlene Hickson, Warden at the New Mexico Women's Correctional Facility ("NMWCF") and Robert Ulibarri, NMWCF's Chief of Security - who she claimed retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment right to freedom of speech during her incarceration at the prison. Specifically, Jaramillo claimed that, after she truthfully reported an act of sexual misconduct by another CCA employee, Ulibarri and Hickson retaliated against her by initiating a misconduct report against her for making a false report;approving her placement in segregation for over a month, pending an internal investigation and disciplinary hearing; denying her appeal from a disciplinary officer's determination that she committed the charged infraction; and continuing to segregate her from the rest of the inmate population for another 60 days as punishment, for a total of 92 days in segregation.1 Jaramillo was ultimately cleared of the charge of making a false report, and her good time restored. Having found Ulibarri and Hickson liable for retaliation, the jury awarded Jaramillo a total of $6,000.00 in compensatory damages and $60,000.00 in punitive damages. The relevant evidence is set forth below.
In 2006, Jaramillo, while walking down a prison corridor, observed another inmate, Kim Chavez, and Andrew Trujillo, a Corrections Officer at NMWCF, "pop up" in the window of Chavez' cubicle, before exiting the cubicle together. (Doc. 417 Ex. 1 Tr. at 87:11-87:22). Jaramillo testified at trial that she later asked Chavez why the two were together, and Chavez informed her "that she had made out with him [Trujillo]." Id. Jaramillo testified that she thought the incident was "gross," in light of Trujillo's position, but did not immediately report it. Id. at 90:13-90:14.
In 2008, Jaramillo and Trujillo got into a heated argument after she reported him to Warden Hickson for failure to process her request for telephone privileges. During the confrontation Jaramillo called Trujillo "one of the most crooked officers that I know," within the hearing of others. Id. at 93:20-94:2. Jaramillo testified that another CCA employee, Linda Calligan, then took her aside to ask what she meant by the remark, and she responded by telling her about Trujillo's kissing Kim Chavez. Calligan told Jaramillo that she had a duty to report theincident, which she did.
Upon making her report, Jaramillo was contacted by a New Mexico Corrections Department investigator, Marla Perez. Perez interviewed Jaramillo twice on October 22, 2008. During the second interview, Perez accused Jaramillo of lying about Trujillo. By the end of the day on October 22, Jaramillo was placed in administrative segregation.
On October 24, 2008, Ulibarri approved Jaramillo's remaining in administrative segregation pending the outcome of NMWCF's investigation. In filling out a placement form, which indicated that the filer "must specify the reason for placement [in segregation]," Ulibarri failed to check a box indicating any of the listed reasons justifying segregation. See Doc. 417 Ex. 9. In the narrative portion of the form, however, Ulibarri wrote that "Jaramillo is to remain in interim Level VI pending the completion of the investigation." Id. At trial, Ulibarri testified that an inmate could not be placed "in segregation pending investigation of something that was not a serious criminal offense." (Doc. 405 Ex. 5 Tr. at 562:3-562:8). He further testified that he could not recall the reason for placing Jaramillo in segregation before determining whether she had committed an infraction, but suggested that it was "probably" because she was a threat to the security of NMWCF and/or had threatened Kim Chavez and/or committed other disciplinary infractions that were not reflected in his narrative on the placement form and/or needed to be "protected from other inmates that liked Trujillo" and may have sought to retaliate against her for making the report. Id., Tr. at 568-589, 593.
At some point shortly after she was placed in segregation, Jaramillo was taken to seeWarden Hickson. Jaramillo testified that Hickson immediately accused her of making a false report and jeopardizing Trujillo's career: (Doc. 405 Ex. 3 Tr. at 122:14-122:18).
On November 11, 2008, Jaramillo was charged with making a false statement about a staff member, and Ulibarri approved her continuing segregation as pre-hearing detention. On a date not set forth by the parties, Linda Hernandez, a Disciplinary Officer at NMWCF, conducted Jaramillo's disciplinary hearing. Kim Chavez declined to appear at the hearing to make a statement about the underlying incident. Chavez testified at trial that her refusal to corroborate Jaramillo's report was due to her fear that she too would be accused of lying and placed in segregation.
On November 21, 2008, Hernandez found Jaramillo guilty of the offense of Fraud and False Statement, and recommended a sentence of an additional 60 days' segregation and 60 days' loss of good time, which was adopted and imposed on November 24, 2008. Jaramillo appealed the decision to Warden Hickson; her appeal was summarily denied.
Trujillo's Termination:
Corrections Officer Andrew Trujillo was terminated from NMWCF for "undue familiarity" with inmates in early 2009. Warden Hickson subsequently dismissed the misconduct report against Jaramillo and restored her good time. At the time of Officer Trujillo's dismissal, Jaramillo had served 92 days in segregation.
Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is appropriate only where "a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). On a motion for JMOL, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determines whether there is evidence upon which the jury could have properly relied in returning its verdict. Klein v. Grynberg, 44 F.3d 1497, 1503 (10th Cir. 1995). The court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Hardeman v. City of Albuquerque, 377 F.3d 1106, 1112 (10th Cir. 2004). The court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Klein, 44 F.3d at 1503. When there is conflicting testimony regarding the events and the defendants' actions, it is the jury's prerogative to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and determine whom to believe. Id. at 1503-04. The court should grant the JMOL only if "'the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences supporting the party opposing the motion.'" Hardeman, 377 F.3d at 1112-13 (quoting Minshall v. McGraw Hill Broad. Co., 323 F.3d 1273, 1279 (10th Cir. 2003)).
A motion for JMOL under Rule 50(a) may be made at any time before the submission of the case to the jury. The motion for JMOL may be renewed after trial pursuant to Rule 50(b) no later than twenty-eight days after the jury is discharged. In ruling on the renewed motion, the 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).
"Because the Rule 50(b) motion is only a renewal of the preverdict motion, it can be granted only on grounds advanced in the preverdict motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 advisory committee's note to 2006 amendment; see Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, 718 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.1 (10th Cir. 2013) (). Accordingly, a "party is entitled to JMOL only if the court concludes that 'all of the evidence in the record . . . [reveals] no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a claim under the controlling law.'" Wagner v. Live Nation Motor Sports. Inc., 586 F.3d 1237, 1244 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted); see also Hysten v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 530 F.3d 1260,1269 ().
As an alternative to a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, a moving party seek a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Bannister v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 692 F.3d 1117, 1125 (10th Cir. 2012). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A), a federal district court may grant a new trial "for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an...
To continue reading
Request your trial