×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Fifth Circuit Upholds $5,000 Excessive Force Verdict Against Wackenhut Guard
In an unpublished opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict finding that a prison guard used excessive force against a prisoner and awarding $5,000 in damages.
Mississippi prisoner Thomas Unger sued Wackenhut (now Geo Corporation), various supervisory officials and guard Reginald Blanchard, alleging that he was subjected to excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights.
Prior to the jury's verdict, the district court dismissed, as frivolous, the claims against all defendants but Blanchard. The jury then returned a verdict for Unger, finding Blanchard had used excessive force against [him]...and awarding $5,000 in damages.
Blanchard filed several post-judgment motions seeking to reverse the verdict, but the district court denied them all.
The Fifth Circuit subsequently concluded there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that unreasonable force was used, without provocation, by... Blanchard and that the use of such force resulted in an injury to Unger. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying his motion for a new trial." The court also found no error in the denial of Blanchard's post judgment motion to amend the judgment or" in the refusal to stay the judgment.
The court also rejected the prevailing defendant's claim that the district court erred in denying their motion for attorney's fees and costs. Although the district court dismissed as frivolous, the claims against those defendants prior to the jury's verdict, its ruling...implied that it did not believe that the facts of the case warranted an award to the prevailing defendants. The record also indicated that the claims against those defendants were not totally vexatious and without any foundation." See: Unger v. Wackenhut, 85 Fed. Appx. 387 (5th Cir. 2004).
[Approx. 290 words]
Mississippi prisoner Thomas Unger sued Wackenhut (now Geo Corporation), various supervisory officials and guard Reginald Blanchard, alleging that he was subjected to excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights.
Prior to the jury's verdict, the district court dismissed, as frivolous, the claims against all defendants but Blanchard. The jury then returned a verdict for Unger, finding Blanchard had used excessive force against [him]...and awarding $5,000 in damages.
Blanchard filed several post-judgment motions seeking to reverse the verdict, but the district court denied them all.
The Fifth Circuit subsequently concluded there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that unreasonable force was used, without provocation, by... Blanchard and that the use of such force resulted in an injury to Unger. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying his motion for a new trial." The court also found no error in the denial of Blanchard's post judgment motion to amend the judgment or" in the refusal to stay the judgment.
The court also rejected the prevailing defendant's claim that the district court erred in denying their motion for attorney's fees and costs. Although the district court dismissed as frivolous, the claims against those defendants prior to the jury's verdict, its ruling...implied that it did not believe that the facts of the case warranted an award to the prevailing defendants. The record also indicated that the claims against those defendants were not totally vexatious and without any foundation." See: Unger v. Wackenhut, 85 Fed. Appx. 387 (5th Cir. 2004).
[Approx. 290 words]
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Unger v. Wackenhut
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 85 Fed. Appx. 387 (5th Cir. 2004). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Jury Verdict |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 5000 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
85 Fed. Appx. 387
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter.
Please use FIND to look at the applicable circuit court rule before citing this opinion. Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4. (FIND CTA5 Rule 47.)
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Thomas F. UNGER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WACKENHUT; Emmitt L. Sparkman, Warden of Marshall County Correctional Facility
in Holly Springs, in his individual and official capacities; Willie
Mae Williams, Assistant Warden at Marshall County Correctional Facility, in her
individual and official capacities; Reginald Blanchard, Sergeant; Charles
Smith, Sergeant, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-
Appellants.
No. 03-60345.
Summary Calendar.
Jan. 13, 2004.
Background: Prisoner brought claim against warden, assistant warden, and other prison officials, alleging that one prison official used excessive force against him. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi entered judgment on jury verdict finding that one official was liable for $5000 in damages for using excessive force. Official appealed.
Holding: The Court of Appeals held that warden, assistant warden, and other prison officials, as the prevailing defendants, failed to demonstrate that federal district court abused its discretion in denying their motion for attorney fees.
Affirmed.
*388 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. USDC No. 3:00-CV-127-B.
Thomas F. Unger, pro se, Greenville, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Lawson Hester, Craig, Hester, Luke & Dodson, Ridgeland, MS, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. [FN*]
FN* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The appellee-defendant Reginald Blanchard appeals the judgment entered upon the jury verdict finding Blanchard had used excessive force against Thomas F. Unger, Mississippi state prisoner # 68203, and finding him liable for damages to Unger in the amount of $5000. Blanchard also appeals the district court's order denying his postjudgment motions to alter or amend the judgment, for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict, for stay of enforcement of the judgment and alternatively, for his motion for a new trial.
Viewing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of Unger, the nonmoving party, and giving deference to the jury's credibility findings, there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that unreasonable force was used, without provocation, by Officer Blanchard and that the use of such *389 force resulted in an injury to Unger. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Blanchard's motion for a judgment as a matter of law nor did it abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir.2000); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).
As discussed below, the district court did not err in denying Blanchard's postjudgment motion to amend the judgment or in refusing to stay the judgment in Unger's favor.
The prevailing defendants/appellees, Wackenhut, Sparkman, Williams, and Smith, argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for attorney's fees and costs because the district court dismissed the claims against them as frivolous. They contend that the district court erred in failing to amend the judgment to offset the attorney's fees and costs due to them against the judgment rendered in Unger's favor against Blanchard.
Although the district court dismissed as frivolous the claims against these defendants prior to the jury's verdict, its ruling on the prevailing defendants' motion implied that it did not believe that the facts of the case warranted an award to the prevailing defendants. The record also indicated that the claims against these defendants were not totally vexatious and without any foundation. Therefore, the prevailing defendants failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for attorney's fees. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980).
This determination renders moot the motion of Blanchard and the prevailing defendants seeking to amend the judgment to offset the attorney's fees award against the judgment rendered in Unger's favor and against Blanchard. Blanchard has failed to make any argument or to cite any authority to support his claim that he should not have been taxed the costs of the proceeding. Thus, this claim is deemed abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).
The district court's judgment on the jury verdict in favor of Unger and against Blanchard and the orders denying the defendants' postjudgment motions are AFFIRMED.
85 Fed.Appx. 387
END OF DOCUMENT
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter.
Please use FIND to look at the applicable circuit court rule before citing this opinion. Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4. (FIND CTA5 Rule 47.)
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Thomas F. UNGER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WACKENHUT; Emmitt L. Sparkman, Warden of Marshall County Correctional Facility
in Holly Springs, in his individual and official capacities; Willie
Mae Williams, Assistant Warden at Marshall County Correctional Facility, in her
individual and official capacities; Reginald Blanchard, Sergeant; Charles
Smith, Sergeant, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-
Appellants.
No. 03-60345.
Summary Calendar.
Jan. 13, 2004.
Background: Prisoner brought claim against warden, assistant warden, and other prison officials, alleging that one prison official used excessive force against him. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi entered judgment on jury verdict finding that one official was liable for $5000 in damages for using excessive force. Official appealed.
Holding: The Court of Appeals held that warden, assistant warden, and other prison officials, as the prevailing defendants, failed to demonstrate that federal district court abused its discretion in denying their motion for attorney fees.
Affirmed.
*388 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. USDC No. 3:00-CV-127-B.
Thomas F. Unger, pro se, Greenville, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Lawson Hester, Craig, Hester, Luke & Dodson, Ridgeland, MS, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. [FN*]
FN* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The appellee-defendant Reginald Blanchard appeals the judgment entered upon the jury verdict finding Blanchard had used excessive force against Thomas F. Unger, Mississippi state prisoner # 68203, and finding him liable for damages to Unger in the amount of $5000. Blanchard also appeals the district court's order denying his postjudgment motions to alter or amend the judgment, for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict, for stay of enforcement of the judgment and alternatively, for his motion for a new trial.
Viewing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of Unger, the nonmoving party, and giving deference to the jury's credibility findings, there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that unreasonable force was used, without provocation, by Officer Blanchard and that the use of such *389 force resulted in an injury to Unger. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Blanchard's motion for a judgment as a matter of law nor did it abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir.2000); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).
As discussed below, the district court did not err in denying Blanchard's postjudgment motion to amend the judgment or in refusing to stay the judgment in Unger's favor.
The prevailing defendants/appellees, Wackenhut, Sparkman, Williams, and Smith, argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for attorney's fees and costs because the district court dismissed the claims against them as frivolous. They contend that the district court erred in failing to amend the judgment to offset the attorney's fees and costs due to them against the judgment rendered in Unger's favor against Blanchard.
Although the district court dismissed as frivolous the claims against these defendants prior to the jury's verdict, its ruling on the prevailing defendants' motion implied that it did not believe that the facts of the case warranted an award to the prevailing defendants. The record also indicated that the claims against these defendants were not totally vexatious and without any foundation. Therefore, the prevailing defendants failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for attorney's fees. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980).
This determination renders moot the motion of Blanchard and the prevailing defendants seeking to amend the judgment to offset the attorney's fees award against the judgment rendered in Unger's favor and against Blanchard. Blanchard has failed to make any argument or to cite any authority to support his claim that he should not have been taxed the costs of the proceeding. Thus, this claim is deemed abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).
The district court's judgment on the jury verdict in favor of Unger and against Blanchard and the orders denying the defendants' postjudgment motions are AFFIRMED.
85 Fed.Appx. 387
END OF DOCUMENT