Source: http://openjurist.org/262/f3d/146/robert-linda-provost-v-the-city-of-newburgh
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 14:08:21
Document Index: 710544771

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 240', '§ 240', '§ 240', '§ 240', '§ 240', '§ 1983', '§ 240', '§ 50', '§ 240']

262 F3d 146 Robert Linda Provost v. The City of Newburgh | OpenJurist
262 F. 3d 146 - Robert Linda Provost v. The City of Newburgh HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series262 F.3d
262 F3d 146 Robert Linda Provost v. The City of Newburgh 262 F.3d 146 (2nd Cir. 2001)
ROBERT & LINDA PROVOST, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-CROSS-APPELLEES,v.THE CITY OF NEWBURGH, ULYSSES OTERO AND PATRICK SORRENTINO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,JOHN ROPER, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT
Docket No. 00-7790, 00-7791August Term, 2000
We review a district court's grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, see Diesel v. Town of Lewisboro, 232 F.3d 92, 103 (2d Cir. 2000), applying the same standard that the district court itself was required to apply, see LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412, 429 (2d Cir. 1995). As the district court recognized, "[j]udgment as a matter of law may not properly be granted [to Sorrentino] under Rule 50 unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [Provost], is insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find in [Provost's] favor." Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 289 (2d Cir. 1998).
The court also correctly noted that "[i]t is well settled in this Circuit that 'personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.'" Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Moffitt v. Town of Brookfield, 950 F.2d 880, 886 (2d Cir. 1991)). In the circumstances of this case, Provost could have demonstrated such personal involvement by a supervisory defendant such as Sorrentino by establishing to the satisfaction of the jury that Sorrentino (i) personally participated in the alleged constitutional violation, (ii) was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (iii) exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of the plaintiff by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring. See Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir. 1995).
"A § 1983 claim for false arrest[] rest[s] on the Fourth Amendment right of an individual to be free from unreasonable seizures." Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir. 1996). "The existence of probable cause to arrest constitutes justification and is a complete defense to" such a claim. Id. Probable cause exists when an officer has "knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime." Id. Because this issue arises in the context of Roper's Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to Provost. The question before us is whether the evidence, viewed in that light, could reasonably support the jury's conclusion that Roper did not have probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct. See Galdieri-Ambrosini, 136 F.3d at 289. In other words, the issue is whether there is "such an overwhelming amount of evidence" demonstrating the existence of probable cause that "reasonable and fair minded [persons] could not arrive at a verdict against" Roper. Disanto, 220 F.3d at 64 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Gagnon, 696 F.2d at 20 ("[A]ppellant[] must show that no reasonable jury could fail to find that the officers had probable cause."). We conclude that there is not.
1. The Public Conduct Requirement. The New York disorderly conduct statute punishes "disruptive behavior... of public rather than individual dimension." People v. Munafo, 50 N.Y.2d 326, 331, 406 N.E.2d 780, 783, 428 N.Y.S.2d 924, 926 (1980). "The clear aim was to reserve the disorderly conduct statute for situations that carr[y] beyond the concern of individual disputants to a point where they... become a potential or immediate public problem." Id.
Provost's testimony was also supported by Roper, who testified that a person would have to "raise [his] voice to communicate" through the bullet-proof glass at the police station and that "[i]t's normally very difficult to hear people that are speaking in a normal tone of voice." Another police officer testified similarly. The jury could reasonably have concluded that Roper knew that Provost's "holler[ing]" and "yell[ing] through the window" was for the legitimate purpose of getting the desk officer's attention, not to cause "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm."
The issue here is thus not unlike that in Gagnon v. Ball, where we refused to overturn a jury verdict against two Connecticut officers who had arrested a woman as she sought their assistance in apprehending an alleged "flasher" who was apparently fleeing the crime scene. See 696 F.2d at 19. Despite "uncontroverted evidence showing that [the plaintiff] was shouting and using rough language in a public area," we held that in light of the officers' concessions at trial that they were aware of the circumstances prompting the plaintiff's boisterous behavior, it was "a fair jury question as to whether the officers lacked probable cause" regarding the intent element of the materially identical Connecticut disorderly conduct statute. Id. at 20. Although the facts of Gagnon are substantially different from those of the case at bar, the underlying principle is relevant to this appeal: an officer who concedes the possibility that there were justifiable reasons for disruptive conduct underlying a plaintiff's arrest is hard-pressed to establish that he had probable cause as a matter of law on the intent element of § 240.20. Here, as in Gagnon, "[t]he jury was entitled to conclude that [the arresting] officers were aware of [the plaintiff's] legitimate reason for shouting, but arrested [him] nonetheless." Gagnon, 696 F.2d at 20.
Of the seven subdivisions of § 240.20, only (2) and (3) arguably apply to this case. Subdivision (2) provides that a person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with the requisite intent or recklessness with regard to public inconvenience or annoyance, "[h]e makes unreasonable noise." N.Y. Pen. L. § 240.20(2). The term "unreasonable noise" means "a noise of a type or volume that a reasonable person, under the circumstances, would not tolerate." People v. Bakolas, 59 N.Y.2d 51, 53, 449 N.E.2d 738, 740, 462 N.Y.S.2d 844, 846 (1983). Provost conceded that he banged on the glass and that he yelled and hollered through the window. He also answered "yes" to the question whether he had "become noisy." But the words "bang on the glass" and "yell" and "holler" cover a range of volume. The jury was not required to infer that Provost was making "unreasonable noise" as required by the statute for him to have been engaging in disorderly conduct. This is especially true in view of Roper's concession, confirmed by another police officer, that one would need to speak loudly to be heard though the thick bulletproof glass in front of the clerk's desk.
Subdivision (3) of § 240.20, the provision under which Provost was in fact charged, makes it a violation for a person who, "[i]n a public place,... uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture" if his behavior satisfies the other elements of disorderly conduct. At least one of the officers who witnessed Provost's actions stated that there was "nothing... aggressive" or "threatening" about his behavior. Roper himself admitted that he did not see Provost make any obscene gestures. And although several officers testified that Provost used obscene and "aggressive" language, Provost denied having done so. The jury was free to credit Provost's testimony and not the officers', thus concluding that probable cause was absent. And if on any rational view of the evidence, the jury's verdict could be sustained, we are obligated to accept that view, rejecting Roper's effort to overturn the jury's verdict.
Even if the jury had chosen to credit the officers' account of Provost's language, moreover, that language could not be the basis for a valid arrest because, as the district court concluded and the defendants do not dispute on appeal, it was constitutionally protected. "Only 'fighting words' directed at police officers can be criminalized, and the 'fighting words' doctrine is probably 'narrower [in] application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer, because a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen.'" Posr, 180 F.3d at 415 (quoting City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462 (1987)). "Fighting words must tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Id. (emphasis in original). Because Provosts' language by all accounts did not meet this "fighting words" standard, his speech was protected by the First Amendment. And "First Amendment protection means, of course, that an utterance [could] not have been the basis for a legitimate arrest, which in turn means that [Roper] would not have been justified in believing that [Provost's] comment[s] warranted arrest for disorderly conduct." Id. at 416. The jury thus could reasonably have concluded that Roper did not have probable cause to believe that Provost's behavior fit within § 240.20(3).
Qualified immunity "serves important interests in our political system," Sound Aircraft Servs., Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, 192 F.3d 329, 334 (2d Cir. 1999), chief among them to ensure that damages suits do not "unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties" by saddling individual officers with "personal monetary liability and harassing litigation." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987). Cf. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 456 F.2d 1339, 1348 (2d Cir. 1972) ("[E]ven learned and experienced jurists have had difficulty in defining the rules that govern a determination of probable cause.... As he tries to find his way in this thicket, the police officer must not be held to act at his peril.").
Roper's request that we overturn the verdict and enter judgment for him on the basis of qualified immunity thus confronts two procedural obstacles. The first is the familiar rule that "a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below." Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976); see also Gwozdzinsky v. Magten Asset Mgmt. Corp., 106 F.3d 469, 472 (2d Cir. 1997) ("[W]e will not decide an issue on appeal not first presented to the district court."). Because Roper first raised the argument that he was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law in his initial brief on appeal, this rule appears to preclude his attempt to assert the defense at this stage of the litigation.
The second hurdle is Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 itself, which sets forth the procedures by which parties may seek judgment as a matter of law in the district court. That rule allows a party to request judgment as a matter of law after the trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) only if it sought such relief before the jury retired to deliberate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2), and limits the permissible scope of the later motion to those grounds "specifically raised in the prior motion for [judgment as a matter of law]." Samuels v. Air Transport Local 504, 992 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir. 1993); McCardle v. Haddad, 131 F.3d 43, 51 (2d Cir. 1997) ("In sum, a posttrial motion for judgment as a matter of law can properly be made only if, and to the extent that, such a motion specifying the same grounds was made prior to the submission of the case to the jury.").
Because Roper did not specifically include a qualified immunity argument in his pre-verdict request for judgment as a matter of law, he could not have included such an argument in his post-verdict motion even had he attempted to do so. See Lambert v. Genesee Hosp., 10 F.3d 46, 54 (2d Cir. 1993) ("[T]he specificity requirement is obligatory."), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1052 (1994). Absent such a motion that includes the specific grounds for relief, this Court is "without power to direct the District Court to enter judgment contrary to the one it had permitted to stand."11 Borger v. Yamaha Int'l Corp., 625 F.2d 390, 395 (2d Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pittman v. Grayson, 149 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that it is "well established" that a party cannot seek judgment as a matter of law on appeal "on a given issue unless it has timely moved in the district court for" such relief); McCardle, 131 F.3d at 50 ("[T]he defense [of qualified immunity] cannot properly be decided by the court as a matter of law unless the defendant moves for judgment as a matter of law... in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 50.").
We may excuse these procedural errors only to prevent a "manifest injustice." McCardle, 131 F.3d at 52; see also Samuels, 992 F.2d at 15 ("Relief from the [Rule 50] specificity requirement is available only to avoid 'manifest injustice' to the moving party.") (quoting Baskin v. Hawley, 807 F.2d 1120, 1130 (2d Cir. 1986)); Schmidt v. Polish People's Republic, 742 F.2d 67, 70 (2d Cir. 1984) (" While th[e] bar to raising new issues on appeal is not absolute, it may be overcome only when necessary to avoid manifest injustice.") (citation omitted). We do not perceive such injustice in this case. As noted above, it is doubtful that Roper was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, since the evidence would have reasonably supported a finding that he acted abusively without even a belief that the arrest was justified.
III. Provost's Other Allegations of Error
B. Punitive Damages Instruction
We agree with the first part of Provost's argument: The disputed portion of the punitive damages instruction was erroneous. Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "allow[s] juries and courts to assess punitive damages... against the offending official[] based on his personal financial resources," City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 269 (1981), "[u]nder well established precedent in this Circuit, 'it is the defendant's burden to show that his financial circumstances warrant a limitation of the award.'" Mathie v. Fries, 121 F.3d 808, 816 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Smith v. Lightning Bolt Prods, Inc., 861 F.2d 363, 373 (2d Cir. 1988)). The duty then is on the defendant to present evidence, before the jury renders its verdict and on appeal therefrom, of his limited resources if he wishes that factor to be weighed in the calculation of punitive damages. See Zarcone v. Perry, 572 F.2d 52, 56 (2d Cir. 1978) ("[T]he decided cases and sound principle require that a defendant carry the burden of showing his modest means [by] facts peculiarly within his power if he wants this considered in mitigation of damages."); cf. Fishman v. Clancy, 763 F.2d 485, 490 (1st Cir. 1985) (declining to overturn a jury verdict where the defendants "failed to create a record of their financial capabilities"); Tri-Tron Int'l v. Velto, 525 F.2d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1975) (refusing to "interfere with [a punitive damages] award" because the defendants "offered no evidence on their financial ability to pay"); El Ranco, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Nevada, 406 F.2d 1205, 1218-19 (9th Cir. 1968) (same), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 875 (1969).
C. Answers to Jury Questions
Probable cause to arrest. On these undisputed facts, there is a substantial argument that probable cause existed for Provost's arrest. Even if, as the majority points out, it is necessary to raise one's voice somewhat to be heard through the slit in the window, Provost's undisputed conduct in yelling, hollering, banging on the glass, and becoming even noisier on the fifth occasion than on the prior occasions sufficed "to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that [Provost] ha[d] committed... a crime." Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir. 1996). New York law defines disorderly conduct to include a person who "makes unreasonable noise" "recklessly creating a risk" of "public... annoyance." N.Y. Pen. L. § 240.20(2) (McKinney 2000).1
I do not believe the absence of the above colloquy amounts to a forfeiture of Roper's valid defense of qualified immunity. Principles governing the forfeiture of legal rights are not rules of a game to see which party's lawyer has a lower point score when the litigation is completed. They exist to serve legitimate purposes. In the case of the rule governing a JMOL motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, two purposes exist for requiring a party to move at the close of all the evidence that the undisputed facts, viewed from the adversary's perspective, entitle the moving party to judgment (or at least to have a particular issue adjudicated in its favor). The primary purpose is to afford the adversary an opportunity to persuade the trial judge that the adversary should have an opportunity to present additional evidence supporting its side of the issue on which JMOL is sought. See Leopold v. Baccarat, Inc., 174 F.3d 261, 268 n.6 (2d Cir. 1999) (ground not asserted in JMOL motion not considered where adversary had "no opportunity to cure any deficiency in her proof"); Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & Development Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 286 (2d Cir. 1998). The second purpose is to afford the trial judge an opportunity to simplify the jury's task by removing issues that are not subject to reasonable factual dispute. See generally 9 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 50.21[2] (3d ed. 2001).
The majority concludes that probable cause could reasonably be found lacking because the mens rea and conduct elements of section 240.20 could reasonably be found lacking. As to mens rea, the majority focuses on the requirement of acting with "intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm," N.Y. Pen. L. § 240.20 (emphasis added), ignoring the alternative mental state of "recklessly creating a risk thereof," id. (emphasis added), which is what Provost did. As to conduct, the majority concludes that "[t]he jury was not required to infer that Provost was making ''unreasonable noise' as required by the statute for him to have been engaging in disorderly conduct." This might be an appropriate observation if we were reviewing Provost's conviction for the criminal offense. The issue for us, however, is not whether he was making unreasonable noise, but only whether there was probable cause to believe that he was.