Jacques Pierre Gibeau, A/K/A Marvin Joseph Pitsley v. Charles Nellis, Sheriff Reuel Todd, Undersheriff Samuel New, Assistant Supervisor James Lytle, Correctional Officer Leroy Healy, Correctional Officer Peg Hunter, Jail Nurse, and Dr. Richard Thompson, Jail Doctor

Citations: 18 F.3d 107; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 3682Docket: 655

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; February 27, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jacques Pierre Gibeau, also known as Marvin Joseph Pitsley, appeals a judgment from Chief Judge McAvoy in a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The jury found that Correction Officer James Lytle used excessive force against Gibeau, violating the Eighth Amendment, but did not award damages. The appellate court affirms the district court's decision not to grant compensatory damages but reverses the decision regarding nominal damages, ordering that they be awarded. Additionally, the court affirms the dismissal of all other claims against Lytle and all claims against the other defendants: Sheriff Charles Nellis, Undersheriff Reuel Todd, Assistant Supervisor Samuel New, Correctional Officers James Lytle and Leroy Healy, Jail Nurse Peg Hunter, and Jail Doctor Dr. Richard Thompson.

Gibeau filed a civil rights lawsuit following an incident with corrections officers at Oswego County Jail while he was incarcerated for criminal contempt related to the murder of his father. On December 2, 1988, after Gibeau complained about breakfast coffee and dumped it on the floor, Officer Spanfelner ordered him to return to his cell for a 24-hour lock-in. Gibeau refused, leading to Spanfelner and other officers forcibly escorting him to his cell. Once inside, Gibeau resisted and struck Spanfelner, who then retaliated by hitting Gibeau in the face. Officer Lytle subsequently entered the cell and, while Gibeau was handcuffed and restrained by Healy, struck him three times in the head with a flashlight. Gibeau sustained a broken finger, wrist injuries, and a superficial temple contusion, along with reported blurred vision, but no serious internal injuries were found.

Gibeau's lawsuit named Officers Lytle and Healy, Nurse Peg Hunter, Doctor Richard Thompson, Sheriff Charles Nellis, Undersheriff Reuel Todd, and Assistant Supervisor Samuel New. At trial in April 1992, Chief Judge McAvoy dismissed all claims except for excessive force against Lytle and Healy and inadequate medical treatment against Hunter. The jury found Healy did not use excessive force and Hunter provided adequate medical care, but concluded Lytle did use excessive force, which did not result in injury to Gibeau. The jury did not address damages, and both Gibeau and Lytle's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied. Gibeau is now appealing the judgment, contending that the denial of his motion was incorrect.

Gibeau has allegedly waived his right to a judgment n.o.v. motion by not requesting a directed verdict at the trial's conclusion, as per Fed. R.Civ. P. 50(b). A judgment n.o.v. serves as a renewal of a directed verdict motion, and typically, if a directed verdict is not moved for, a judgment n.o.v. can only be considered to avoid manifest injustice. However, the appellees did not raise this procedural defense in the district court, leading to their own waiver of the issue. The appellate court will only consider such arguments in the interest of justice, which the appellees failed to demonstrate.

Regarding the merits of Gibeau's motion for judgment n.o.v. concerning compensatory damages, the standard requires that the moving party must show that only one reasonable conclusion could be drawn by a jury without weighing witness credibility. Gibeau contends the jury’s finding of excessive force by Lytle should have led to a conclusion that his injuries were proximately caused by that force. However, it was determined that a reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise. Gibeau was involved in a prior altercation with Officer Spanfelner, during which he sustained a blow to the head, creating conflicting evidence regarding the source of his injuries. The jury might have found the excessive force applied by Lytle did not result in physical injury, possibly attributing the injury to the earlier altercation instead.

Gibeau contends he should recover for pain, suffering, humiliation, or fear resulting from Lytle striking him with a flashlight, referencing Hudson v. McMillian. However, the court clarifies that Hudson establishes a violation of the Eighth Amendment for excessive force causing more than minimal injury but does not guarantee compensable injury under Section 1983 for all instances of excessive force. Gibeau must prove a causal link between his alleged non-visible injuries and Lytle's actions. Evidence indicates Gibeau failed to establish that Lytle's excessive force caused him any compensable injuries; witnesses did not recall him complaining or crying out in pain post-incident, and his reported head pain might have stemmed from another officer, Spanfelner.

Regarding nominal damages, Gibeau argues the district court erred by not awarding them despite the jury verdict. The court agrees, noting that under Section 1983, a plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages upon proving a violation of a constitutional right, even without actual injury. The jury's special verdict form prevented them from considering nominal damages after ruling Lytle's actions did not cause injury. Although the court instructed the jury they could award nominal damages, it did not mandate it. Because the jury's lack of instruction on the obligation to award nominal damages constitutes an error, the court reverses the denial of Gibeau's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to allow for a nominal damages award. The court remands for an award of one dollar in nominal damages against Lytle while affirming the dismissal of all other claims against Lytle and the remaining defendants.

A federal court's increase of a jury award constitutes impermissible additur, violating the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, as established in Dimick v. Schiedt and Gentile v. County of Suffolk. In Gentile, although the jury found constitutional violations and awarded damages against the county, it rejected claims for nominal damages against individual defendants, emphasizing the constitutional prohibition against additur. However, the current case is distinct. Here, the law mandates an award of nominal damages due to a substantive constitutional violation, as Gibeau did not prove actual injury. This ruling does not infringe on the jury's authority, as nominal damages are required under these circumstances. The court affirmed part of the decision, reversed another part, and remanded the case for nominal damages. Additionally, Dr. Richard Thompson, the defendant-appellee, was not notified about the appeal and lacked representation, but this was deemed irrelevant to the court's ruling. Gibeau is currently serving a fifty-year to life sentence for murder.