# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 41 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Tho m as J. In gr as si a
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

K ei th Sc ha fe r; Fe lix V i n c e n z ; J u l i e I n m a n ; A l a n B l a k e ; J a y E n g l e h a r t ; D a v ind er H ay

re h

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s
Unk no wn Ki m , Psychi at ris t/ Ph y si ci an , SORTS, in he r in di vi du al cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Perr y Bramha ll ; Kei th W il ke y ; Bo b Wil ls ; Gab rie l Cr awfo rd ; J oe East er; Mary be th Ro we; Tamra Arch am bo ; Su sa n Kra em er
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

Ro n M oo re, RN, SORTS, i n h is off ic ia l an d i nd iv idua l ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Pen ny Port el

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t Kay lynn Reed , RN, SORTS, in he r of fic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll eeRo n S ch arer
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Dav idL. Easte r, Sr., Secu rit y Offic er, SORTS, i n h is off ic ia l an d i nd iv idua l cap aci ty; Eric Mi ll er, Secu rit y Offi cer, SORTS, in hi s of fic ia l an d in di vi du al cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Eva n M il le r
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t
Kris ti na Ben de r, Uni t Pr og ram Supe rv is or , Hoct or

3 Ward, SOR TS, in he r of fic ia l
an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty; Mi ke Bas le r, Secu rit y Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d in di vi du al cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es Gary Ben ne tt ; M arkBro wn; Ch ris Ch am be rla in ; An dr ew Co le ; Way ne Co ok ; Ton y Crab tre e; Ro be rt Do la n
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s
Eric Edg ar, Sec ur it y

Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv idua l ca pa ci ty; Bri an Gil le sp ie , Secu rit y

Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty; Jac ob Hay s, Se cu rit y

Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Jo hn Hoo ke r
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Bri an Jo ne s, Se cu rit y

Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

-2

-Kale b J ul ie tt e; Lin da Kno x
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s
Neil Koen ig , Secu rit y

Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv idua l ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee Larry Majo r; J eff M il le r
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s
Ch uc k P arm le y , Secu rit y Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l capa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Ro dn ey Ran ge l; Ch ris Ro be rt; Darri n S he et s; Bry an Sm it h; Co nn ie Sm it h

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s
Mi cah Ste wart , Secu rit y

Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty; Ben Thu rm an , Secu rit y

Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv idua l ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Ja so n Vi ns on
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Bru ce Weeks , Secu rit y

Aid e, SORTS, i n h is off

ic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Bren da Swift ; J oh n Do es
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

-3

-Lora Eckh ert , RN, SORTS, in hi s o ffi ci al an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

9, 2 01 8 Fil ed : Ap ril 20 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, MELLOY, andSHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

T hom as In gr as sia br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t fo rty- fo ur ind ivi dua ls w or kin g in va ri ous cap aci ti es at th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Me nta l H ea lth ’ s Se x O ff en de r Re ha bi li ta ti on
an d Treat m en t Serv ic es (“ SORTS”) faci li t y

. The faci li ty ho us es in di vi du al s, li ke In gr as si a, who ha ve be en ci vi ll y co m m it te d du e to th ei r pr ed is po si ti on to co m m it

se xu al ly vi ol en t of

fen se s. Se e ge ne ra ll

y Mo

. Rev

. St at

. §§ 63 2

. 4 8 0, 63 2.4 95

. In gr as si a, who ha s be en at th e faci li ty si nc e hi s rel eas e fro m pr is on in 20 08 , ad va nc ed cl ai m s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d M is so ur i t or t l aw.

Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d m os t of th e de fen da nt s fro m th e cas e, 1 In gr as si a tri ed th e cas e ag ai ns t th e rem ai ni ng d e fen da nt s be fo re a jury. The tri al

co nc ern ed fo ur in ci de nt s of al le ge d ex ces si ve fo rce, fai lu re to in te rv en e, an d as sa ul t

The Hon or ab le Aud rey G

. F l e i ss ig , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-4

-an d b at te ry

whi le res tra in in g In gr as si a. The ju ry fou nd for th e de fen da nt s on ev ery cl ai m

. In gr as si a no w ap pe al s, al le gi ng fiv e erro rs by th e di st ric t co ur t in co nd uc ti ng th e tr ia l.

In gr as si a fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t a b us ed it s di sc ret io n in no t

co nd uc ti ng a se pa rat e tri al fo r each of th e fo ur in ci de nt s. Se e Ath ey v. Far mer s Ins

. Exch

. , 23 4 F.3 d 35 7, 36 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (n ot in g st an da rd of rev ie w). Bu t In gr as si a 2

co nc ed es th at he ne ve r as ke d fo r se pa rat e tri al s, a n d we ha ve he ld in si m il ar ci rcu m st an ces th at th e fai lu re to rai se th e is su e be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t co ns ti tu te s a waiv er. Se e O’Del l v. Her cu le s, In c. , 90 4 F.2 d 11 94 , 12 01 -0 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (“ W e fin d ap pe ll an ts co ns tru ct iv el y waiv ed th ei r rig ht to co nt es t bi fu rcat io n by fa il in g to rai se an ob

jecti on on th e rec or d b el ow. The refo re, we ne ed no t reac h t he m eri ts .”). Eve n as su m in g th at he ha d pr es erv ed th e cl ai m , ho w e v e r , it wou ld fai l. At tri al , In gr as si a at te m

pt ed to sh ow a pa tt ern of un la wfu l co nd uc t by th e de fen da nt s. Giv en th is th eo ry , t he d i s t r ic t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in co nd uc ti ng on e tri al fo r al l fo ur in ci d e n ts

. Se e Ath ey , 23 4 F.3 d at 36 2. Tha t st ru ctur e was effi ci en t an d fit wit h In gr as si a’s th eo ry

of t he cas e.

I n g r a ss ia ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de cl i n i n g to ex cl ud e refe ren ces at tri al to th e na tu re of hi s co m m it m en t an d to hi s pr io r ba d act s. Se e L i t t l et on v. McNee ly , 56 2 F.3 d 88 0, 88 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (n ot in g st an da rd o f

r ev ie w). He arg ue s th at th is ev id en ce was irr el ev an t an d un du ly pr ejud i c i a l

. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Wat

so n , 65 0 F .3d 10 84 , 10 89 (8t h C ir. 20 11 ) (ci ti ng Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e 40 1, 40 2, an d 40 3)

. Yet th e na tu re of hi s co m m it m en t w a s rel ev an t to th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e in ci de nt s at is su e, an d di sc us si on of hi s pr io r ba d

Alt ho ug h In g r a s s ia do es no t id en ti fy th e ru le su pp or ti ng hi s fir st cl ai m , we 2 in te rp ret hi s cl ai m as be in g ro ot ed in Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 42 rat he r th an Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 21

. Se e Rein ho ld so n v. Min ne s o t a , 3 4 6 F

. 3d 84 7, 85 0- 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (d es cri bi ng th e d i f fere nc e an d no ti ng ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rdof r ev ie w for

Ru le 21 ).
-5

-act s was rel ev an t to sh ow th e em pl oyees’ st at es of m in d du rin g th os e in ci de nt s. Se e McCr ar y-El v. Sh aw , 99 2 F.2 d 80 9, 81 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (n ot in g th at pr io r ba d act s of pl ai nt iff can be rel ev an t to st at e of m in d of de fen da nt s)

. Ju ro r vo ir di re on th e su bjec t of se x of fen se s al so m it ig at ed an y un fai r pr ejud ic e fro m th e te st im on y

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Pol ud

ni ak , 65 7 F.2d 94 8, 95 7 (8t h Cir. 19 81 ). W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th e ev id en ce. Se e McCr ar y-El , 99 2 F

. 2d at 81 2. Mo reo ve r, ev en as su m in g th e di st ric t co ur t al lo wed to o m uc h te st im on y on th e ab ov e is su es , th e ex ces s wou ld no t ha ve ha d a “ su bs ta nt ia l in flu en ce on th e jury verd ic t.” Se e Har ri s v. Ch an d , 5 06 F.3 d 11 35 , 1 13 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ; s e e al

so W il so n v. Ci ty of Des Moi ne s , 44 2 F.3 d 63 7, 64 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ Im pr op er ad m is si on of ev id en ce whi ch is cu m ul at iv e of m at te rs sh ow n by ad m is si bl e ev id en ce i s h arm le ss erro r.”). 3

Fo r hi s th ird co nt en ti on , In gr as si a arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t a b u se d it s di sc ret io n in no t de cl ari ng a m is tri al aft er a de fen da nt te st ifi ed ab ou t hi s oc cu pa ti on
as a “ reg is te red nu rs e wit h th e Sex ua ll y Vio le nt Pred at or ’s Uni t,” th us vi ol at in g a
co ur t or de r ag ai ns t us in g th e te rm “ se xu al ly vi ol en t pr ed at or .” “ W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al fo r a cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n, wit h th e ke y qu es ti on be in g whe th er a ne w tri al is ne ces sa ry to pr ev en t a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce.” M a x f ie ld v. C i n t a s Co r

p., No

. 2 , 56 3 F.3 d 69 1, 69 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d)

. W e fin d no cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n. The jury was al read y aware of In gr as si a’s se xu al ly-vi ol en t pa st , an d to th e ex te nt th e “ pr ed at or ” rem ark cau se d

un fai r pr ejud ic e, juro r vo ir di re on th e su bjec t of se x of fen se s m it ig at ed it

. Se e Pol ud ni ak , 65 7 F.2 d at 95 7. Thi s “ on e pa ss in g co m m en t” was “ no t o f su ch a

m ag ni tu de ” to warra nt a ne w tri al , se e Smi le y v. Gar y Cr os sl ey For d, In c. , 85 9 F.3 d

W e de cl in e to se pa rat el y ad dr es s In gr as si a’s ba re refe ren ces to Fed eral Ru le s 3 of Evi de nc e 6 08 an d 60 9. Se e But le r v. C ri tt en de n C ty ., Ark. , 70 8 F .3d 10 44 , 10 51 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ).
-6

-54 5, 55 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ), so th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de cl in in g

to ord er o ne , se e Fin k v. Fol ey-Be ls aw Co

. , 98 3 F .2d 11 1, 1 14 -1 5 (8 th Cir . 19 93 )

.

The rem ai ni ng two al le ge d erro rs are al so to o in si gn ifi can t to ha ve pr ejud ic ed In gr as si a. Se e McKn ig ht By & Th ro ug h Lu dw ig v. Jo hn so n Co nt ro ls , I nc

. , 3 6 F.3 d 13 96 , 14 05 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (n ot in g har m le ss erro r st an da rd ). The al le ge d erro rs are th at : (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t al lo w In gr as si a to el ic it te st im on y reg ard in g SORTS’s fai lu re to rele as e an y of it s ot he r res id en ts du rin g t he ti m es at i ss ue in th e
cas e; an d (2 ) th e di st r i c t c ou rt di d no t al lo w In gr as si a to im pe ach a no n- de fen da nt wit ne ss ba se d on a di ffer en t c o u r t ’s fin di ng , in a di ffer en t cas e, th at th e wit ne ss la ck edcred ib il it y

on a pa rti cu la r is su e.

Eve n a s s u m in g th e di st ric t co ur t erre d on th es e ru li ng s, th e ru li ng s were pe rip he ral to th e qu es ti on at tri al : whe th er th e de fen da nt s at SORTS us ed ex ces si ve fo rce or co m

m it te d rel at ed to rts in res tra in in g In gr as sia

. In ev al ua ti ng th e de fen da nt s’ act io ns , th e jury watc he d vi de os of th e in ci de nt s in qu es ti on an d he ard ev id en ce th at In gr as si a was on e of th e m os t da ng ero us an d th r e a t e n i ng res id en ts at SORTS. Se e McCr ar y-El , 99 2 F.2 d at 81 2. In gr as si a al so te st ifi ed an d of fere d hi s own acco un t of th e in ci de nt s. The tri al la st ed se ve ral da y s, an d In gr as si a no te s th at th e jury to ok le ss th an an ho ur to fin d fo r th e de fen da nt s. Not hi ng su gg es ts th at ad m it ti ng th e two fact s
no te d ab ov e wou ld ha ve ch an ge d th is res u lt

. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at an y erro r fo r th e two rem ai ni ng cla im s was ha rm le ss

. Se e McKn ig ht , 36 F.3d at 1 40 5.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-