Paul Warren v. Judy Fanning Dr. Taca, Paul Warren v. Judy Fanning, Dr. Taca

157(b)(2)(A) аrgument that the of the estate” in violation of addressing Cemco’s § out (O). agree the district court’s is not a “court of We with bankruptcy court event, States,” reasoning. the district found the district court which United 451 and (relying on 28 U.S.C. the merits of the sanction and persuasive considered § Inc., Communities, proper. agree found it reasonable In re Arkansas Cir.1987)), agree with the determinаtion. with that that the bank determination district court’s arguments Cemco's other are without jurisdiction to sanction ruptcy court had merit and no discussion.12 warrant Bankruptcy Rule attorney under Cemco’s are judgments of the district court Hogan, 9011. Schweiker See Affirmed. 2607 n. 585 n. may (1982) (appellate court L.Ed.2d any basis judgment on

affirm district court denied, record), cert.

having support in the 106 S.Ct. Auto., etc., (1986); v. United Martinez

Local provides Bankruptcy Rule WARREN, Appellant, Paul may sanction mis bankruptcy court relating signed papers filed conduct FANNING; Judy Appellees. [Bankruptcy] Code.” case under the “a pay may include an order to The sanctions WARREN, Appellee, Paul party expenses reasonable in the other filing, including curred because attorney’s fee.

reasonable FANNING, Taсa, Appellant. Judy argues the sanction arose in Cemco Nos. 90-2833. (in proceeding a “related” which FDIC Appeals, United States Court bankruptcy jurisdiction court’s invoked the Eighth Circuit. purchasers to issue deeds to plots) bankruptcy therefore the burial Sept. Submitted 1991. only to recommend court was authorized Decided Nov. district court and could the sanction tо the order. 28 U.S.C. not enter a final See 157(c)(1). contends that the Cemco also

§ and not related to

sanction is unreasonable

any expenses.

The district court found Cem attorney ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍filed the motion at issue

co’s case, bankruptcy a “case

Memorial Estates’ code,” that the sanction it

under the proceeding in a “core”

self was

bankruptcy could enter a final order court 157(b)(1)

pursuant to attorney's conduct “con

noted that the administration of estate”

cem[ed] liquidation of the assets

and “affect[ed] satisfy personally complain quired by no reason to if it does not own the court to "has added). (Emphasis rights." excess costs. the burial Because we found the latter moot, propriety of issue we will not address the issuance of Cemco also contends that the of deeds to FDIC customers. the issuance plots deeds for burial improper. to FDIC customers was However, that it Cemco concedes required

of an suffered 1974 that right leg a rod to be inserted in his right leg being that resulted in his shorter leg. than his left ankle caused him to seek treatment medical during years on numerous ocсasions ailments, 1987 and 1988. For both of these Taca, MECC, Dr. a contract doctor at responsible physician charge of War- April ren’s treatment. In after Dr. special- Taca referred Warren to an outside ist, surgery Warren underwent to have his his permanently toenails on left foot re- In June after moved. Warren was specialist, referred to the same had Hart-Mahon, Louis, Mo., Margaret St. operation right leg an the rod in to have argued, appellant. for surgical procedure removed. A also was Chestnut, Louis, Mo., L. St. ar- Kathi performed right on his heel. After under- Kathryn Dyer A. gued, appellees Warren, going procedures, who had on the brief. complained earlier that his corrective boots being not properly, were maintained com- BOWMAN, Judge, Circuit Before plained right that his ankle still bothered HEANEY, Judge, Senior Circuit pair him as he was forced to wear same LOKEN, Judge. Circuit damaged of boots. April 1988 Warren filed this Section BOWMAN, Judge. Taca, alleging 1983 lawsuit that Dr. as well prisoner, state filed this Paul employed three other defendants (1988),alleging suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 MECC, right had violated his to be free right to be frеe from his constitutional punishment from cruel and unusual de- punishment cruel and unusual had been nying proper him medical treatment de- violated reason of the deliberate indif liberate indifference to his serious medical defendant state to his ference of the actors completion needs. At the of the trial A jury serious medical needs. found that (now Hudson), Dr. Judy Fаnning Taca and Dr. Taca had violated Arturo MECC, director health at remained Eighth rights, Amendment but awarded jury as defendants. The was instructed to compensatory Warren neither nor nominal against find for Warren and either of the damages. Magistrate Judge1 The declined (1) defendants if it found that Warren had attorney par to award Warren fees. Both required a serious medical need that treat- appeal. ties affirm. ment, (2) that the defendant was deliberate- Department entered the Missouri need, ly indifferent to that May 1986. After he was Corrections defendant’s deliberate indifference was the transferred to Missouri Eastern Correc- proximate consequent cause of (“MECC”) began seeking tional Center he damage jury to Warren. The found for medical treatment for an infection of the against Taca, against Dr. but not early toes on his left foot in late 1986 or Fanning. Regarding damages, complained repeatedly pain 1987. He was instructed to award Warren and discomfort in his toes for the next damages compensate him for dam- time, year. During complained he also ages sustained as a direct result of the right rights. ankle. Warren wore violation of his constitutional If the foot, corrective boot the result found a violation but no substantial Jackson, Magistrate Judge E. 1. The Honorable Carol United case in front of the with a Magistrate Judge appeal Appeals, pursuant for the Eastern District direct to the States Court 636(c)(1) (3) (1988). parties try of Missouri. сonsented to U.S.C. § & (but inappropriate so as to evidence was allowed intentional actual required) to award Warren provide not maltreatment or a refusal essen damages in the amount one dollar. amendment,” eighth tial care violates the against having found for Warren and jury, id., disagreement but a “mere with the actual awarded Warren neithеr course of medical treatment [the inmate’s] nor eighth an amendment [does constitute] claim of deliberate indifference.” trial, Smith filed a motion After the Taca Marcantonio, judgment, or amend the or alter alternative, notwithstanding for a verdict. Warren filed a motion light Examining the record alternative, trial, alter new Warren, most favorable to we conclude judgment. also filed amend the persons as reasonable could differ to requesting attorney motion ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍fees. All the conclusions to be drawn. Warren de Magistrate the motions were denied veloped problem with his left toes late

Judge, judgment accordingly, was entered complained problem 1986. He first this parties appeal. and both point prior February at some 1987. Be appeals Taca of his Dr. the denial 1988, April tween 1987 February when notwithstanding the motion for permanently he had his toenails left re reviewing the denial of verdict. specialist, moved an outside he com motion, use same standard as the we the pain plained of and discomfort in his left court, trial Charles Woods Television prison tоes at least twelve times to the Cities/ABC, 1159 Capital medical staff. Warren testified that his denied, (8th Cir.), 110 cert. were June toenails from 1987 until black (1989); namely, 107 L.Ed.2d 104 S.Ct. January when he first saw the out must we specialist. side Warren and another wit (1) light the evidence the consider ness told testified that Taca once War prevailing party, the most favorable to supposed turn ren that toenails were (2) conflicts in the evi- assume that all year. fall black and off once a Taca pre- favor of the dence were resolved complain referred to Warren a chronic (3) proved all vailing party, assume as er, pan many complaints of whose “didn’t party’s evidence facts that Ill Testimony, out.” Trial at 191. Of vol. prove, give prevаil- tended 1988 that the numerous times 1987 and ing party the of all benefit favorable complained reasonably may be drawn inferences ankle, done, least nine Dr. Taca’s treat times proved. facts That from the [we “patient if ment reas primarily the motion consisted must affirm the denial of] of Dr. persons could differ as to surance.” Our examination Taca’s reasonable evi- from the testimony conclusions be drawn attitude towards trial reveals an dence. reasonably Warren’s medical needs that indifferent, if not con could viewed as be Am., Casualty and Inc. v. Aetna Western temptuous. diagnosis of Cir.1990). The immediate (8th Sur., specialist vastly different the outside was pris indifference to a Deliberate pre from of Dr. as was serious medical needs violates the oner’s Considering the state scribed treatment. right to be Eighth Amendment prisoner’s inferences of the record and punishment. from cruel and unusual free regarding Dr. properly could have drawn 97, 104-05, Gamble, Estelle v. per are attitude toward we Taca’s persons could differ suaded that reasonable "Grossly incompetent inadequate care actions amounted as to Dr. Taca’s whether indifference, as can constitute deliberate medi to Warren’s deliberate indifference to take an easier can a doctor’s decision needs, simply was cal whether there course of treatment.” less efficacious disagreement of Warren’s (8th with the course Jenkins, 919 F.2d Smith Accоrdingly, affirm omitted). Cir.1990) (citation care medical treatment. “Medical al) you a ver- damages, may then return denying Dr. Judge’s order Magistrate plaintiff in some nominal sum dict for the notwithstand Taca’s (on of actual one dollar account such as ing the verdict.2 damages). appeal. He to Warren’s We turn 14, reprinted Ap- Jury Instruction No. that, weight argues because first added). (emphasis pellant’s Brief at 9-10 com he entitled to showed was evidence form sheet submitted to On the verdict in not damages, the court erred pensatory included for an award of jury, space was trial. “The trial court’s granting a new provision made no actual but motion for a new decision trial] [on damages award. a nominal strong reversed absent a not be should in instructions not “[A]ny error discretion.” showing abuse of Cham it is objected to is waived unless Corp., 814 F.2d peau Fruehauf miscarriage in a plain error that resulted Cir.1987). no Warren has made Foundation, justice.” Mayo Beckman v. showing. The fact Cir.1986). Here, Eighth rights Amendment found that damages not jury instruction on nominal that he does not mean had violated been to, objected but alsо was was not compensable suffered substantial judge by proffered to the trial Warren. accurately. measured could be that Moreover, in the effect of the incorrect trial court’s decline to reverse the therefore it left the struction is that with motion for a new trial. denial of Warren’s to award Warren nom discretion to decline alternativе, claims In the in damages. Clearly, inal the erroneous damages, to nominal that that he is entitled miscarriage not resulted in a struction has instructed, not so the was plain justice of and does constitute include be amended to judgment should therefore affirm the trial error. We agree that the law damages. We motion to amend court’s denial of Warren’s damages nominal entitle Warren to would judgment the to include required to Dr. Taca. is from “[T]he Finally, we turn to Warren’s claim damages it has found once award Judge erroneously de Magistrate the that punishment if it has not and unusual cruel attorney 42 nied his motion for fees.3 into dollars the to convert been able provides relevant U.S.C. 1988 plaintiff has suffered.” Cow a proceeding to en part that ... “[i]n F.2d Wyrick, 862 ans v. provision force a of ... ... Section[ ] Here, jury found that Dr. court, discretion, may allow the its cru indifference inflicted Taca’s deliberate prevailing party ... a reasonable attor upon punishment Warren. el and unusual part Magis the costs.” The ney’s fee as however, inquiry, That does not end our Judge held that Warren was not a trate рroffered instructions party and therefore was not enti prevailing objection jury without stated read to the attorney fees. tled only that party if prevailing is a he “suc- you find that the is entitled Warren [i]f litigation ‘any significant issue in ceeded on a accordance with verdict instructions, that the which some benefit but do not find [he] achieve[d] ” (actu- bringing suit.’ Texas State plаintiff has sustained substantial reasons, Appellant’s Reply reprinted Brief Addendum affirm the or- same we also 2. For the denying to alter or amend Dr. Taca’s motion final order entered on October der at 1. The trial, judgment. Warren’s motion for a new his denied judgment, to alter the alternative motion this issue is not Dr. Taca claims that 3. fees, attorney Taca’s motion to altеr motion for claim cannot be taken serious- before us. This ly. judgment, and Taca’s alternative motion for timely appeal “appeals notice of notwithstanding the verdict. This is pursuant rendered from the final ... appeal is final order from which Warren's Court’s Order entered in this action to th[e] taken. October, Appeal, day Notice of 1990." 9th or de minim- purely tеchnical referred Indep. Sch. v. Garland Ass’n Teachers ” Garland, at U.S. is success. S.Ct. Dist., Excess Northbrook Na (1989) (quoting S.Ct. at L.Ed.2d Cf. Gamble, 924 Procter & 278-79 Ins. v. Surplus Helgemoe, deau Cir.1991)(hold n. 11 641-42 Cir.1978)). (1st $45,500 on a claim recovery of ing pre- that minimum, considered to be [A]t minimis). de is million more than $5 be must ... vailing party the dis- noted, to a resolution point our recently able As Fifth relationship legal changes the putе does holding Be- the defendant. itself between finding of a significance not diminish limitation, technical this absolute yond violation.... [T]he constitutional of a toas insignificant ... so victory may be held that consti- Supreme [a Court [has] par- support insufficient be for nom- is actionable violation] tutional status_ suc- plaintiffs Where ty proof actu- without even inal charaсterized can be legal claim cess on Moreover, violation ... injury. “[a] al minimis, a or de purely technical de minim- is never rights constitutional con- justified in would be district a constitutional that is,” sense formula- “generous cluding even the trifling “so small is never violation satis- has not been today adopt tion” we of it.” no account takes the law fied. today. no less valid holding is Thаt (cita- at 1493 Id. object when the sole Rather, hold claim omitted). Warren’s tions to recover suit is of a violat- rights were Eighth Amendment victory money] is no recovery of [no succeed- against As ed. strug- no This was Section under asked Warren claim. But ed on this It was principles. constitutional gle over a ask for not damages; he did money for plain- surely so since damagе suit a relief. injunctive declaratory judgment nothing more. tiffs our While nothing. Thus, “won” Warren Cain, F.2d v. Farrar Estate of award an ruled that has apparently circuit omitted) (footnotes Cir.1991) (5th a to make damages is sufficient nominal 649, 651 Woods, v. (quoting Lewis v. see Allen party, prevailing a plaintiff seeking only Cir.1988)). In action (5th an Cir.1990); 902 F.2d Higgins, a that a determination Turner, v. Coleman occurred, unac has violation constitutional using case Cir.1988) (a pre-Garland award, damage any kind by companied holding Garland, by adopted standard award, not suffi does a not even nominal dam- only nominal party a awarded relationship be legal change the ciently did here Warren party), prevailing is a ages verdict as to make parties so tween Al- damages. ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍nominal receive not even victory. a technical than more anything opinion, this earlier explained though, as 755, 762, 107 Helms, 482 U.S. Hewitt See dam- nominal have obtained would Warren instruction, the errone- proper ages under knowing satisfaction (the “moral very is the jury given to instruction ous rights had concluded court federal when proffered instruction enough to make is not bеen violated” to the instruction read judge the trial trial party.). voiced. objection was jury, no correctly denied Warren’s but no one blame have thus his counsel attorney fees. jury’s decision themselves is affirmed. is damages, and nominal award jury’s determi- except the nothing left with Judge, HEANEY, Senior deliberately indif- Dr. Taca was nation concurring. needs. medical serious tо Warren’s ferent separate- result, but write I concur surely is as this victory such Pyrrhic A importance ly to underscore it when meant Supreme Court what 137 necessity of 103 L.Ed.2d 866

instructing Supreme As the noted, damages to redress vio- awarding degree plaintiff's Court “the of the rights. goals constitutional in relation lations of success to the other lawsuit is a factor critical to the determina- eighth alleged proved an fee, of the size tion of a reasonable not to through Dr. Taca’s amendment violation eligibility for a fee award at all.” Id. indifference to Warren’s serious deliberate (emphasis origi- 109 S.Ct. at 1492 needs, proxi- indifference medical nal). Jury In- mately injury Warren. caused correctly required struction No. 10 jury’s I failure to believe awаrd nom- findings in Warren’s to make each of these consequent inal and Warren’s ine- concluding that Dr. Taca’s favor before ligibility solely for a fee award resulted cruel and unusual treatment constituted prof- from an erroneous instruction jury made punishment. Once the Accordingly, fered Warren himself. I required, and should findings, it was have reluctantly affirming concur in the district instructed, tо award Warren nominal been court’s refusal to amend the place damages if unable to a mone- it was attorney’s to award fees. tary value on the harm Warren suffered. Wyrick, See Cowans

(8th Cir.1988). damages are re- Nominal finding

quired of cruel and un- because punishment necessarily includes a de-

usual pain, suffered

termination

anguish, misery of some kind. Id. The

jury’s inability quantify the value of triggered have should an Eliawira and Barbara NDOSI damages. award of nominal Ndosi, Appellees, Jury Instruction No. thus contained permissive

critical the use of the flaw: MINNESOTA, Appellant. STATE OF mandatory ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍“must” in “may” instead of the The verdict reference to No. 91-1623. similarly form flawed in that it omitted space in which to enter a nominal award. Appeals, United States Court of Unfortunately for his counsel’s Eighth Circuit. drafting produced these and we own flaws Submitted Nоv. appeal. cannot correct them on Decided Dec. instructed Had a awarded damages against Dr. certainly statutory crossed the would have eligibility attorney’s

threshold of fees

and costs 42 U.S.C. 1988. See under Higgins,

Allen

Cir.1990) $10,000 (awarding attorney’s fee against only prevailed who one twenty-

of ten one of defendants $1).

one claims for total Pre-

vailing party purposes status for of section requires only suc- any significant litigation

ceed on issue

which achieves some of the benefit bringing the action. Texas State Teach- Dist., Indep.

ers Ass’n v. Garland Sch. 782, 791-92, ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‍1486, 1492-93, 109 S.Ct.

Case Details

Case Name: Paul Warren v. Judy Fanning Dr. Taca, Paul Warren v. Judy Fanning, Dr. Taca

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 21, 1991

Citation: 950 F.2d 1370

Docket Number: 90-2832, 90-2833

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.