Lunsford v. Shy

• Decision Date: 27 March 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-0595,18-0595
• Parties: Peter LUNSFORD, Franklin Kelly, and Lloyd Erwin, Defendants Below, Petitioners v. Christopher SHY, Plaintiff Below, Respondent
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

842 S.E.2d 728

Peter LUNSFORD, Franklin Kelly, and Lloyd Erwin, Defendants Below, Petitioners

v.Christopher SHY, Plaintiff Below, Respondent

No. 18-0595

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: January 29, 2020

Filed: March 27, 2020

John P. Fuller, Jordan K. Herrick, Michael W. Taylor, Bailey & Wyant, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Petitioners

Kerry A. Nessel, The Nessel Law Firm, Huntington, West Virginia, Attorney for the Respondent

Jenkins, Justice:

Petitioners Peter Lunsford ("Mr. Lunsford"), Franklin Kelly ("Mr. Kelly"), and Lloyd Erwin ("Mr. Erwin") (collectively "the Correctional Officers") herein appeal from the June 1, 2018 order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County denying the Correctional Officers’ Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial, and Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment as provided for by the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. In this appeal, the Correctional Officers raise two assignments of error. First, the Correctional Officers claim that the circuit court erred in allowing punitive damages to be recovered by Respondent Christopher Shy ("Mr. Shy") without an accompanying award of compensatory or nominal damages. The Correctional Officers next assert that the circuit court erred in its failure to apply the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (2012 & Supp. V 2017) ("PLRA"),¹ to Mr. Lunsford and Mr. Kelly. Having considered the briefs submitted on appeal, the appendix record, the parties’ oral arguments, and the applicable legal authority, we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's June 1, 2008 order.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Shy asserted the following in his Complaint. In August of 2015,² Mr. Shy was incarcerated at the Western Regional Jail ("WRJ") in Barboursville, West Virginia. Mr. Shy alleged that, during his time of incarceration, the Correctional Officers used excessive force against him in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Specifically, Mr. Shy alleged that, in August of 2015, the Correctional Officers began threatening him. The threats allegedly escalated to physical assaults. On a day in August of 2015, at approximately 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., Mr. Shy "was in a visitation room at [the] WRJ when [the Correctional Officers] entered the visitation room, shackled [Mr. Shy] and beat [him] about the face, neck[,] and other body parts." Further, Mr. Shy "was choked by at least one of the individual [Correctional Officers]." Mr. Shy attempted to seek medical treatment at the WRJ medical department, but claims he was denied any treatment.

Mr. Shy contends that, as a result of his beating, he received "several permanent physical injuries" including a "bruised throat

with a hand print from one of the [Correctional Officers], back and rib pain[ ], two black eyes, a swollen/sprained wrist which persisted for no less than three (3) to four (4) weeks, and a bruised and knotted head which likely resulted in a concussion." Mr. Shy further alleges that, to date, he continues to suffer from severe headaches and dizziness, and his vision has "worsened significantly."

Moreover, according to Mr. Shy, he claims that he "filed various grievances," related to claims of use of excessive force by the Correctional Officers in this matter, and "received no response to the same." Related to the August of 2015 incident, Mr. Shy contends that he mailed a copy of his "statement" of charges against the Correctional Officers to the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority ("WVRJA") office in Charleston and that an investigation thereafter commenced. During the investigation, the Correctional Officers denied any wrongdoing. The final outcome of the investigation is unclear from the record before us.

On February 29, 2016, Mr. Shy filed a lawsuit, Civil Action Number 16-C-156 ("initial complaint"), against the Correctional Officers and the WVRJA.³ It is undisputed that Mr. Shy was still an inmate at the WRJ at the time he filed his initial complaint. In his initial complaint, Mr. Shy alleged, among a myriad of claims, a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) (also referred to as " section 1983").⁴ On December 8, 2016,⁵ the circuit court dismissed Mr. Lunsford and Mr. Kelly from Civil Action Number 16-C-156 because Mr. Shy had been unable to obtain service of process upon them.⁶ However, Mr. Shy was able to obtain service of process against Mr. Erwin, and the matter proceeded against him.

Subsequently, on March 8, 2017, Mr. Shy filed a second complaint against the same parties and containing allegations identical to his initial complaint. The second complaint was assigned Civil Action Number 17-C-155 ("second complaint"). It is undisputed that at the time the second complaint was filed, Mr. Shy was no longer an inmate confined in a traditional correctional facility. Service of process of the second complaint was obtained upon Mr. Lunsford and Mr. Kelly. On July 19, 2017, upon the agreement of all parties, Civil Action Number 17-C-155 and Civil Action Number 16-C-156 were consolidated for the purposes of discovery and trial. In its order related to the consolidation, the circuit court ordered,

the consolidated action shall proceed under the Complaint filed in Civil Action Number 16-C-156, that all pleadings filed after the date of entry of this Order shall be filed in Civil Action No. 16-C-156, and that all discovery conducted to date in Civil Action No. 17-C-155 is incorporated as part of the record in Civil Action No. 16-C-156.

The jury trial of Mr. Shy's underlying claims began on December 5, 2017. The trial lasted for three days. Prior to closing arguments, the parties submitted to the circuit court the jury instructions that were ultimately read by the circuit court to the jury and a verdict form for the jury. At the close of evidence, the Correctional Officers moved for judgment as a matter of law; however, the circuit court denied the Correctional Officers’ motion. The jury began their deliberations on December 8, 2017, and returned a verdict that same day.

The jury found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each of the Correctional Officers used excessive force on Mr. Shy on August 23, 2015, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and that each of the Correctional Officers committed the civil tort of battery on Mr. Shy on August 23, 2015. The jury further found by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of each of the Correctional Officers "occurred during the scope of the [Correctional Officers’] employment with the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority." The jury did not find liability on any of Mr. Shy's remaining claims of civil assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or conspiracy. Furthermore, while the jury determined that Mr. Shy suffered damages as a proximate result of the Correctional Officers’ conduct, they awarded $0.00 in damages for past and present anxiety, humiliation, annoyance and inconvenience, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of ability to enjoy life. However, the jury determined that punitive damages were appropriate and awarded Mr. Shy punitive damages totaling $4,500.00, payable by the Correctional Officers in the amount of $1,500.00 each.

Prior to dismissal of the jury, Mr. Shy requested that the jury be ordered to return to deliberation to award nominal damages. The Correctional Officers objected to Mr. Shy's request. According to the circuit court, prior to the submission of the case to the jury, no party requested a jury instruction that would require the jury to award nominal damages as a prerequisite to awarding punitive damages. The circuit court further noted that, "[s]imilarly, no party requested that the verdict form include a direction that punitive damages may not be awarded absent some nominal or compensatory damages." The circuit court denied the request, and the jury was dismissed.

On December 18, 2017, the Correctional Officers filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law as provided for in the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. In their Rule 50(b) motion, the Correctional Officers argued that West Virginia law requires that punitive damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the potential harm caused by a defendant's actions. The Correctional Officers further argued that, in this matter, "there [was] no reasonable relationship between the compensatory damages ($0.00) and the punitive damages award ($4,500.00)." Accordingly, they requested that the punitive damages be set aside. On February 28, 2018, Mr. Shy filed his response, and on March 5, 2018, the Correctional Officers replied.

The circuit court held a hearing on the Correctional Officers’ motion on March 21, 2018. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court took the motions under advisement and directed the parties to submit proposed orders to the circuit court. The circuit court, on March 26, 2018, entered the judgment order memorializing the jury's verdict. Following entry of the judgment order, the Correctional Officers filed motions pursuant to West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure 59(a) and (e) for a new trial and/or to alter or amend the judgment order on the same basis as their previous Rule 50(b) motion.

On June 1, 2018, the circuit court entered an order denying the Correctional Officers’ motions under Rules 50(b), 59(a), and 59(e). The circuit court analyzed similar out-of-jurisdiction cases involving claims arising under section 1983 and concluded that

in [s]ection 1983 actions, where the jury finds that a plaintiff has been subjected to excessive force in violation of his or her constitutional rights and where the plaintiff has put on evidence that he or she suffered compensable

...