Gregg v. Ham
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8696
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gregg sued bail bondsman Ham and others under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state-law torts after Ham and deputies searched Gregg's home seeking a fugitive; Ham's team sought entry without a search warrant and used a shotgun, causing Gregg fear and distress; a jury awarded Gregg nominal damages on §1983 and trespass and $50,000 compensatory damages on assault with $50,000 total punitive damages; district court denied Ham's post-trial motions; Ham appealed asserting (a) improper jury-illed qualified-immunity instruction, (b) JMOL on §1983 and assault claims, and (c) damages awards were inconsistent or excessive; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
- Ham concentrated Rose’s fugitive search around Gregg’s home in Sumter County; Gregg, physically disabled, was isolated at home and subjected to a high-threat entry by Ham and Deputy Yelton, with other bondsmen present; Gregg eventually allowed entry under perceived threat and later sought 911 reporting the incident; Gregg’s allegations included violation of Fourth Amendment rights, trespass, assault, and emotional distress; the jury found in Gregg’s favor on several claims and awarded damages; Ham challenged the jury instructions and damages on appeal.
- Gregg settled with the Sheriff’s Department and Yelton, leaving Ham and Quick Silver as the remaining defendants; the district court granted a directed verdict on intentional infliction of emotional distress; Ham’s Rule 50(b) motions were denied; the panel reviews for plain error on the jury instruction and then considers the merits of the §1983 and assault claims and the damages.
- A key factual issue is whether Gregg’s consent to entry was knowing and voluntary, given she was alone, threatened, and confronted by a loaded shotgun; the jury concluded Gregg did not knowingly consent; the court concluded Ham was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law; the court also held sufficient evidence supported the assault claim and that the damages were not excessive or impermissibly inconsistent.
- The decision preserves the district court’s judgment, affirming the verdict and damages against Ham.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by submitting qualified immunity to the jury | Gregg argues jury instruction impermissibly raised legal issue | Ham contends instruction was plain error under Willingham, but district court should have ruled on immunity | No reversible plain error; bail bondsman not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. |
| Whether there was insufficient evidence to support the §1983 entry/search claim | Gregg contends consent was involuntary given threats and entry | Ham asserts consent was voluntary | Sufficient evidence supported the jury finding of involuntary consent and Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Whether the assault damages were supported and proper | Gregg claims damages reflect harm from assault and fear of harm | Ham argues damages were excessive or unsupported | Evidence supported $50,000 actual damages; jury damages were not improper. |
| Whether punitive and other damages were improperly awarded or remittitur warranted | Gregg contends damages reasonable given conduct and PTSD findings | Ham seeks remittitur or new trial as to damages | No abuse of discretion; punitive damages affirmed and tied to conduct and compensatory damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willingham v. Crooke, 412 F.3d 553 (4th Cir.2005) (instruction on qualified immunity should be decided by the court, not the jury when there is no dispute of material fact)
- Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524 (4th Cir.2011) (two-step qualified-immunity framework; clearly established right inquiry)
- Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1997) (history and purpose test for private-party qualified immunity under §1983)
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1992) (immunity as to government actors; private parties require analysis of history and policy)
- Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (2012) (immunity does not depend on government's full-time status; context for private contractors)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (no warrantless home search absent consent or exigent circumstances)