Sikes v. Gaytan
218 F.3d 491
5th Cir.
2000
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 respectfully on I must dis- an reduced exceptional success cases of some sent, justified. may be award enhanced award the fee circumstances these simply because not be reduced every prevail'on plaintiff failed in the lawsuit.

contention raised Eckerhart,

Hensley v. (1983). L.Ed.2d

103 S.Ct. cir and this Supreme Court

Applying case, SIKES, Plaintiff-Appellee- present it does Robert D. precedent to the cuit’s Cross-Appellant, court’s lodestar district appear not n clearly erroneous. calculatio v. her claims all victorious Williams GAYTAN, Individually and in Juan F. and, majority opinion, under of Guard, Capacity as a De his Official merely prevail appeal failed fendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. against Trader. damages seeking punitive the le Trader has not demonstrated No. 99-50316. counsel related services of Williams’s gal Appeals, of United States Court punitive largely parasitic claims Fifth Circuit. totally within damages subsumed necessary to the success legal services 25, 2000. July underlying claims prosecution ful of the let damages, compensatory services related show that such alone not “arise out damages did' punitive conduct” or that

the same course of “easily on the of each separated

are basis Cobb, F.2d at

claim or defendant.” damages being punitive

Tjiat not affect this appeal does

reversed af- past circuit has in the

analysis. This at- calculation of

firmed district court’s fees an abuse of discretion

torney’s as not damage award

despite reversing punitive greater per- significantly

that reflected a in the award than

centage the total Inc., TRW, case. Stevenson

present Cir.1993) lia- (affirming F.2d 288 $30,-

bility compensatory damages $100,-

000, reversing punitive damages attorney’s fees of over affirming

$20,000). panel As I thus believe that Supreme circuit and departing attorney’s vacating the precedent by

Court clear any showing of award without

fees in the but appellant,

error award merely as a of law

rather matter has been reversed

part award

492 GARZA,

Before G. REYNALDO HIGGINBOTHAM, JOLLY and Circuit Judges. JOLLY,

E. Judge: GRADY Circuit In this section 1983 Robert Sikes, a prisoner, Texas claims that Juan Gaytan, a prison guard, Texas exces- used sive against force him and thereby violated Eighth his rights Amendment punishment. cruel and unusual Sikes 1995, proved 22, to a that on August defendant, by he was severely beaten sergeant Connally Specifically, at the Unit. that, following Sikes evidence (after prison his guard with altercation guard), which on the spit Sikes him, handcuffed him ground, took times, punched him in the face five or six jumped then repeatedly up and down on his left arm until he heard a loud pop. assault, As a result of Sikes suffered shoulder, injuries dislocated left to his left elbow, conjunctival hemorrhaging to his left eye, eye, loss of vision in his left severe bruising and lacerations to his face. Additionally, produced he evidence that he syn- suffers from posttraumatic stress resulting drome from this assault. Antonio, Per A. Hardy San (argued), against Gay- returned a verdict TX, Schertz, (argued), Daniel E. Whitney tan in his capacity, individual finding that TX, for Sikes. he had used force against excessive violation of his Amendment Brocato, Anthony (argued), Gerard Jr rights. On appeal, seeks review of Austin, TX, Gaytan. for the district denial court’s of a separate

jury interrogatory on the quali- defense of immunity.1 fied (1) Gore, Additionally, appeals 1. the suffi 116 S.Cl. ciency supporting of the evidence (1996), trial 134 L.Ed.2d it is clear that the court's decision to instruct the damages on future 574-75, award is not excessive. See id. at (2) expenses, and medical S.Ct. 1589. punitive damages amount of the award. The cross-appeal, On seeks review of ample record reveals evidence on the issue of attorney's amount fees by awarded the trial damages support the future district court's court. The record shows that did the court regard, decision to instruct the in this (1) by: not abuse its support jury's reducing and to the Davis, discretion damages. award of fees; (2) Esposito See v. 47 F.3d amount of recoverable fees on Cir.1995)(stating reducing that "there is no attorney's abuse the award of ten fees denying discretion in a motion for new percent trial due to failure Sikes to succeed on complete unless there is absence [a] of evi against Gaytan his claims in his official ca verdict"). Further, dence to Jackson, pacity. Riley City punitive when the damages amount of (5th Cir.1996)(stating that "this light Supreme award is evaluated in the district reviews the court’s award America, Court’s decision in North BMW of search,” and justified a thus the officer the trial court erred Gaytan argues that im sepa- liability by to submit request it denied his was shielded from when on the issues of jury interrogatories munity), that “there internal rate held is no constitutional Sikes’s conflict in verdict.” Id. at his actions were and whether *3 In of the Snyder opin the course Gaytan does identi- Although sonable. ion, that: ques the stated “A related court authority his assertion any fy liability tion is the issues of and whether re- separate jury a was that qualified immunity should have been fash confused argues the court he that quired, or, ioned as one as the district court issue issues in one by submitting the the them, as two Id. at submitted issues.” Snyder the did not Although 800. court Gaytan’s request trial The court denied question, Snyder this specifically address interrogatories based separate submit read, by in Judge can be as noted Garza of the its belief that “the submission on dissent, implicitly, able “a permit his to. immunity, as liability of and issue qualified immunity trial court to combine the concern of irrec- issue eliminated one liability issue in the same conclusion, this oncilability.” reaching In clear, however, charge.” regard It is that guided our in by court was decision the less of whether the trial court submits the (5th 142 F.3d 791 Snyder Trepagnier, in liability issues of and Cir.1998), the poten- in discussed which we or central fo interrogatories, one two the submitting by separate tial conflict created correctly is on trial cus whether the court quali- and interrogatories on making the In jury. instructed clearly immunity. fied determination, jury interrogatories Snyder, In the district submitted conjunction the “in with considered on jury interrogatories the issues if “the general ¡jury] charge” determine the violated the of whether defendant interrogatories adequately the rights constitutional plaintiffs jury.” Barton’s contested issues of were reason the actions the defendant Service, Disposal Corp., Tiger what Id. at The returned able. (5th Dreil Cir.1989)(eiting F.2d irreconcilable verdict— appeared an Co., ing v. Electric General had the finding that the violated defendant (5th Cir.1975)). plaintiff, but rights constitutional were the actions reason that defendant’s bar, at court was In the case the answers, Id. Based on these howev able. instructing jury on the very clear in the er, qualified im granted the district court of qualified immunity: defense the Id. On munity defendant. you plaintiff prov- If that the has find whether there the issue of we addressed claim, the you en his must then consider finding a an inherent conflict between t was that his conduct defendant’s objectively plaintiffs rights the constitutional tha in the light reasonable the of finding were violated and a defen the clearly at rules established dant, rights, in violation those acted rea that time incident the issue of court, relying Judge Id. The sonable. the not liable. defendant therefore in Melear v. Higginbotham’s concurrence If, considering scope of dis- after Spears, 862 F.2d 1187-88 giv- responsibility generally cretion Cir.1989)(stating a possible that “it is for prison performance toen officials that, cir although to find the actual duties, you prepon- of their find from a not justify search did cumstances plaintiff behavior, derance of the evidence that the circumstances the officer’s (1) proved have either that the defendant to the officer would appeared discretion”). by attorney's statute abuse fees authorized for (2) incompetent, say plausible argument know- that a can be plainly made regarding the law that a ingly rights, you constitutional must

plaintiffs immunity, supported by in- clear however, If, struction, plaintiff. you clarify find for could arguably rather had than jury. reasonable confuse the issue before defendant find his actions did not violate the the light equipoise, of this we must con- belief rights the plaintiff, clude that constitutional the district court did not abuse cannot him liable even single its discretion in this case giving find if plaintiff’s violat- instruction issues fact objec- ed result qualified immunity. as a defendant’s tively action. reasonable judgment the district court is in added). Thus, question (Emphasis *4 all respects must address is whether the court abused AFFIRMED. to deciding its discretion combine the qualified issues of immunity GARZA, REYNALDO G. Judge, Circuit Barton’s, into a See single dissenting: (stating 886 F.2d at 1434 that “a trial court majority Gaytan’s concluded that great is framing afforded latitude the challenge to the district court’s failure to structure instructions and the give a separate interrogatory on the issue special interrogatories to given jury, the of qualified immunity merit. I lacked re- ... will [and not] we disturb that discre- spectfully dissent Gaytan because has sat- showing tion a of abuse of absent discre- isfied demonstrating his burden of tion”). gave following The court the inter- separate interrogatory absence of a rogatory: qualified “misled, immunity prejudiced, or all Considering of the instruction in the jury. confused” the See Whitehead v. jury charge, do find that Plaintiff Miss., Inc., 265, Food Max proved by D. a preponder- Robert Sikes (5th Cir.1998) (citations omitted). Al- 22, the evidence that on August ance of though the district court instructed the Gaytan Defendant Juan F. jury on the the basic elements of Plaintiffs Amendment constitu- of qualified immunity in general the jury right to be from tional cruel and charge, was nec- punishment. unusual essary given the facts of this case to avoid denying request In the defendant’s for a jury confusion. separate interrogatory qualified jury Several factors my conclusion. the trial immunity, court concluded that First, qualified immunity was the central giving interrogatories created the guard’s issue of the prison defense in this confusing jury, the possibility resulting fact, Section case. In is it often the in the return of “irreconcilable” answers. crux of important such cases. The more It that a plausible jury could be con- issue, an more require the we should asking fused an special interrogato- instructions and against the used force jury’s ries direct the attention to that is- to cruel and unusual punish- amounted sue. especially We should therefore be ment, being asked an immedi- concerned that the trial failed court to ately following interrogatory whether the draw the jury’s attention to this issue in conduct of was reasonable. In- a separate instructions and in deed, finding that the against force used special interrogatory. cruel and unusual would ordi- narily to preclude possibility seem light, of a several failures direct finding that actions of jury’s qualified attention to the immu- Still, First, sonable. we are nity constrained also to issue trouble me in this case. important will often miss use show jury instructions did even Second, the immunity.” interrogatories when the fail to fo “qualified term issues qualified im- merely used jury’s instructions attention on the We cus issue. part single as of a munity-type language be tolerant the risk that the less Third, liability. there paragraph jury will be confused into such overlooking interrogatory which separate special no Even if Snyder permits a central issue. qualified immuni- told the to consider trial court to combine ty- and the issue in the same interrogatory, permit it does not a trial

Fourth, troubling, most perhaps jury by benefit give completely if the instructions the confuse even we doubt, we will find that deleting immunity any incon- charge interrogatories jury interrogatories. Snyder us assume that the say sistent. Let Trepagnier, 142 F.3d Cir. instruc- jury charge provided 1998), denied, reh’g reh’g en banc tions on force and both excessive (5th Cir.), dismissed, F.8d 1181 cert. interrogatory only an as immunity but 119 S.Ct. 143 L.Ed.2d 575 jury could well have excessive force. The (1999). Snyder certainly permit does not between the understood difference which, interrogatories are in *5 and claim excessive force substantive instructions, the jury sug consistent with immunity, qualified but gest qualified immunity that the has issue as the odd could have been confused to dropped play.1 out of Given facts of in the disappearance case, qualified that require this we should words, assuming interrogatories. other immunity discussed in a spe be explain lia- that the instructions that minimum, cial we At bility case two i.e. that prongs, in this had that require instructions rights were vio- Eighth Sike’s Amendment actively do interrogatories mislead was lated and officer’s behavior believing qualified that into unreasonable, interrogatory contradict- immunity dropped out consid issue jurors it told the ed instructions when eration. only Eight need find that Sike’s they that in order Amendment were violated know will never if the would We Gaytan Accordingly, find to liable. granted Gaytan immunity have Interrogatory “Considering First states: this the facts of case because there under jury charge, all of the in the instructions separate interrogatory no to draw the D; do find that Plaintiff Robert objective jury’s attention proved by preponderance the evidence his conduct. raised sonableness of 22, 1995, August that on Defendant Juan af- regarding factual issues the force used F. violated Plaintiffs First, his cell. removing ter Sikes from right Amendment constitutional that Gaytan showed Sikes demonstrated punishment?” from cruel unusual behavior, menacing spit- even aggressive, said, and no interrogatory This all the manner. ting at him in an assaultive Sec- liability. interrogatory spoke other ond, Gaytan expert testimony Gaytan acted with the that accordance troubling my This especially is policies procedures pulling experience years prison’s of 18 on the trial bench Thus, him. to subdue years appellate ground bench over Disposal rately convey law a whole. Barton's majority as citation to Barton’s Service, Tiger Corp., 886 interrog- F.2d where the does not address case Cir.1989), point. not on Barton’s is arguably in- instructions atories consistent, interroga- proposition stands for the tories are considered in confusing at least when taken conjunction with the together. jury charge accu- determine evidence from Gaytan brought which a reasonably find that could believed applied

that the forced Sikes was rea- have no reason

sonable. We to be confi-

dent, however, considered to determine whether

these facts with the

acted accordance reasonable-

ness standard and was thus entitled to

qualified immunity. This is so because

there no do have actively mis- jury away

leads immuni- Therefore,

ty. respectfully I dissent. America,

UNITED STATES of

Plaintiff-Appellant, *6 DRONES, Kemont

Janadrick

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-20483.

United States Court Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

July