Opinion ID: 783545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Appellate Defender Office — July 26, 1995

Text: J. Macomb County Clerk — August 16, 1995 10 K. State Appellate Defender Office — August 29, 1995 11 L. Teola P. Hunter, Wayne County Clerk — September 9, 1995 12 M. Law Office of Kitch, Drutchas, Wagner & Keeney — November 7, 1995 13 N. Lynn Allen, Oakland County Clerk — December 20, 1995 14 O. United States District Court — December 22, 1995 15 P. Michigan Court of Appeals — December 22, 1995 16 Q. United States District Court — December 23, 1995 17 R. United States District Court — December 27, 1995 18 S. Sixth Judicial Circuit — January 22, 1996 19 T. United States District Court — February 5, 1996 20 Sallier did not allege that any of the mail was actually read by prison employees, only that it was delivered to him already opened. 21 The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. They argued that Sallier had failed to establish a constitutional violation and that, even if he had, they were protected from suit by qualified immunity. The district court denied the defendants' motion and appointed counsel for Sallier. After Sallier's appointed counsel amended the complaint, the defendants again moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity. The court denied the motion, finding that 22 the jury must make ... factual determinations before the Court has sufficient information to decide the qualified immunity issue. The jury must, for example, decide whether each of the pieces of correspondence referenced in the Complaint constituted legal mail, and whether any letters determined to be legal mail were opened outside of Mr. Sallier's presence. The jury's findings of fact are thus key to the Court's determination of qualified immunity, as the court must then decide, as a matter of law, whether the defendants would have reasonably understood that opening the specific pieces of mail referenced in the complaint violated Mr. Sallier's rights. The jury must make credibility determinations and must determine what legal mail, if any, was opened outside of Mr. Sallier's presence after the defendants knew, or should have known, that such actions were prohibited. 23 Before and during the trial, the district court also issued a series of in limine rulings, including one that granted the plaintiff's motion to preclude admission of his prior convictions and another that denied the defendants' motion to require introduction into evidence of the original envelopes in which the letters in question were received. The court allowed Sallier to introduce as exhibits photocopies of some of the allegedly opened envelopes that included his handwritten notes. 24 The jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff's favor on 13 of the 20 claims, awarding compensatory damages of $750 and punitive damages of $250 for each claim, totaling $13,000 in damages. After the jury verdict, the defendants moved for a new trial based on alleged evidentiary errors or, in the alternative, for remittitur or judgment as a matter of law. The district court denied the motion. The defendants appeal the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial or remittitur and its failure to grant them qualified immunity on all claims.