Moore ex rel. Estate of Grady v. Tuelja

• Decision Date: 06 October 2008
• Docket Number: No. 07-3137.,07-3137.
• Citation: 546 F.3d 423
• Parties: Frederick MOORE and Tommie Grady as Co-Administrators and Personal Representatives of the ESTATE OF Frederick GRADY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Donald TULEJA, Demetrius Williamson, Joseph Palmsone, and Dennis Boyle, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

546 F.3d 423

Frederick MOORE and Tommie Grady as Co-Administrators and Personal Representatives of the ESTATE OF Frederick GRADY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.Donald TULEJA, Demetrius Williamson, Joseph Palmsone, and Dennis Boyle, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-3137.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 29, 2008.

Decided October 6, 2008.

Berve Power, Jr.(argued), Power & Dixon, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Robert L. Schultz(argued), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before CUDAHY, POSNER and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

On the evening of April 8, 2003, Frederick Grady was involved in a major traffic accident.Although Grady escaped without serious injury, his van rolled over on its side and was severely damaged.Later that night, Grady was arrested when he trespassed on the private lot where his damaged van was being held.He was taken to a Chicago police station and placed in a holding cell.In the early morning hours of April 9, 2003, Grady was found unconscious and unresponsive in his cell.Attempts by paramedics to revive Grady were unsuccessful, and Grady tragically died.An autopsy conducted by the Cook County Office of the Medical Examiner concluded that Grady had suffered a fatal heart attack.

Although the autopsy concluded that Grady died from natural causes, injuries found on Grady's body raised suspicion in the minds of his family and friends.They believe that Grady had been beaten in his cell by jail personnel and that this beating precipitated the fatal heart attack.The plaintiffs, co-administers of Grady's estate brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendant police officers and jail personnel deprived Grady of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by using excessive force and denying him medical care.

The case was tried before a jury.The trial lasted seven days; the jury heard all of the plaintiffs' evidence and returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in just over an hour.The plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial but the district court denied the motion, noting that the jury's verdict was reasonable in light of the "weak liability case" presented by the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs now appeal the denial of their motion for a new trial.We AFFIRM.

I.

Grady was involved in two separate car accidents on April 8, 2003.The first was relatively minor.The second, which occurred at roughly 6:30 p.m., was more serious.In that accident, Grady's van crossed out of its lane and struck another vehicle, causing both vehicles to flip over.Officer Andrew Lucca of the Chicago Police Department responded to the scene, as did paramedics Renee Sanchez and John Kaveney.Grady was wearing his seat belt and escaped the crash with only minor bumps and bruises.He initially refused medical treatment and refused to be taken to the hospital.Grady, who worked as a carpenter, told Sanchez that he had to go back to get his carpentry tools out of his van.Sanchez warned Grady that he should stay away from the van because "there was broken glass and stuff."Despite the warning, Grady reached into the van, cutting his right hand rather seriously in the process.The paramedics bandaged Grady's hand—a fact that they recorded in their log—and replaced the dressing once more after Grady bled through the first bandage.Grady again refused to be taken to the hospital.Instead, he was released.

At 8:45 p.m. that evening, Grady trespassed on the lot where his van was being stored in an attempt to retrieve his tools.The lot owner called the Chicago Police Department.Officers Leo Morales and Luis Garza arrived at the scene and arrested Grady.As Officer Morales placed Grady in handcuffs, he noticed the bandage on Grady's hand.Officers Morales and Garza confiscated Grady's tools and took him back to the station.They handcuffed Grady to a bench in the police station while they filled out the arrest report.At that point, Officer Garza noticed the bandage and asked Grady what had happened.Grady told him that he had a car accident but did not elaborate; Grady also declined medical assistance.The arrest report, which focused on the facts surrounding the alleged criminal trespass, did not mention the injury to Grady's hand.

Officers Morales and Garza then uncuffed Grady and turned him over to lockup personnel.There was a strict policy against handcuffs in the lockup, and Officer Morales stated that he took the handcuffs with him.Grady was processed by Officer Donald Tuleja, who did a quick medical check of Grady while he sat behind a desk.He did not observe any active bleeding, and Grady denied that he needed medical care.The intake report did not note the bandage on Grady's hand.Palmsone took Grady's photograph; Williamson took his fingerprints.The photograph reveals that Grady had no injuries to his head when he entered the jail.Although neither Palmsone nor Williamson noticed the bandage on Grady's hand, no fingerprint was taken of Grady's right hand.Grady was apparently cooperative with jail personnel, who allowed him to make a phone call.Grady called his longtime companion, Kathryn Tierno, and told her that he was "very concerned about his tools."Grady was then walked to his cell, which contained a toilet, a sink and a metal bench.Robert Gonzales, who was in the cell next to Grady, saw Grady being taken to his cell and noticed the bandage on his hand.

Personnel at the jail made rounds of the lockup every fifteen minutes.Grady was calm and courteous.On one occasion, Grady asked Williamson about his tools.Palmsone, who made the majority of rounds, said that Grady slept most of the night.Gonzales, who was in the cell next to Grady, remembered hearing nothing but coughing and snoring coming from Grady's cell.When Palmsone made his rounds at 1:30 p.m., he noticed Grady sitting up on his bench.Approximately ten minutes later, Gonzales stated that he heard a "thump" in Grady's cell followed by silence.When Palmsone made his rounds at approximately 1:45 p.m., he found Grady unconscious and unresponsive on the floor of his cell.Palmsone ran to get Officer Tuleja, who called Sergeant Dennis Boyle and Captain Raymond Miller for help.A log reflects that the fire department and paramedics were called at 1:45 p.m. Sanchez and Kaveney arrived to find Grady in a state of cardiac arrest on the cell floor.They were unable to resuscitate him.Grady was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.An autopsy conducted by Dr. Eupil Choi determined that Grady had died naturally of a heart attack.The autopsy also revealed that Grady had a number of injuries to his body, including a hand laceration, two abrasions on his head and scrapes on his wrist and neck.Sergeant Boyle examined the cell and found no signs of struggle; investigators from the office of internal affairs arrived later and also examined the cell.They too found no evidence of wrongdoing.

The plaintiffs filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on April 8, 2004.They alleged that Williamson and Palmsone used excessive force on Grady, that Officer Tuleja failed to intervene and that Sergeant Boyle and Captain Miller denied Grady medical care.The plaintiffs also alleged that Officers Morales and Garza had arrested Grady without probable cause.¹The plaintiffs' theory was that Grady angered Palmsone and Williamson by constantly complaining about his tools.Palmsone and Williamson had finally "snapped," striking Grady—who the plaintiffs believe was still handcuffed—with a baton.As Grady raised his hands to defend himself, the baton lacerated his hand and the force of the blow knocked the handcuffs into Grady's wrists and against his head, causing abrasions.The plaintiffs claim that Officer Tuleja saw the beating take place but failed to intervene.Further, they claim that Sergeant Boyle and Captain Miller delayed calling the paramedics until after the defendants had finished cleaning the cell and concealing evidence of the use of excessive force.²The plaintiffs' case focused almost entirely on inferences based on the nature of the injuries found on Grady's body; they claimed that the only reasonable medical conclusion was that Grady had been struck with a blunt object in his cell.

The jury trial lasted seven days.The jury heard testimony from almost all of the individuals who came into contact with Grady that day, including Officer Morales Officer Garza, Officer Tuleja, Palmsone, Williamson and Gonzales.They all denied that any wrongdoing had taken place.Dr. Choi, who conducted the original autopsy of Grady, testified at trial that he believed that Grady's death was natural.The plaintiffs retained Dr. Michael Kaufman to reexamine Dr. Choi's work but, after conducting his own autopsy, Dr. Kaufman also concluded that Grady's death was natural.The plaintiffs' case was based almost entirely on testimony of Dr. Besant-Matthews, who did not have an opportunity to examine Grady's body but reviewed the medical evidence in the case.The jury returned a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants in a little more than an hour.The plaintiffs moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) or a new trial under Rule 59(a) but the district court denied the motions.The plaintiffs now appeal the denial of their post-trial motions.³

II.

The plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a).SeeFED. R. CIV. PRO. 59(a).We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.SeeKapelanski v. Johnson,390 F.3d 525, 530(7th Cir.2004)."A party seeking to reverse a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial bears a particularly heavy burden."Smith v. Northeastern Ill. Univ.,388 F.3d 559, 569(7th Cir.2004).A verdict will be set aside as contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only if "no rational jury" could have rendered the verdict.SeeKing v....