Opinion ID: 75710
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did Plaintiff deliberately strike Defendant Breeden?

Text: 75 6. Do you find that force by any of the Defendants was necessary to subdue Plaintiff? 76 7. Did Plaintiff resist any of the Defendants as they attempted to subdue him? 77 8. Did Plaintiff intentionally strike any of the Defendants during this altercation? 78 9. Did Defendant Sergeant Breeden use excessive force against Plaintiff? 79 (a) If yes to above, was the force used malicious and sadistic, done for the very purpose of causing the Plaintiff harm? 80 10. Did Defendant Officer Gomez use excessive force against Plaintiff? 81 (a) If yes to above, was the force used malicious and sadistic, and done for the very purpose of causing the Plaintiff harm? 82 11. Did Defendant Officer Luciano use excessive force against Plaintiff? 83 (a) If yes to above, was the force used malicious and sadistic, and done for the very purpose of causing the Plaintiff harm? 84 12. Was Plaintiff injured during this altercation? 85 (a) If yes, what injuries did Plaintiff sustain as a result of this altercation? (please list) 86 13. If you find that Plaintiff suffered a laceration (cut) to his head above his left eye, was that injury caused by falling and hitting the heating unit? 87 14. If you find that Plaintiff suffered a laceration (cut) to his head above his left eye, was that injury caused by any Defendant striking the Plaintiff? 88
89
90 15. Were any of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff the result of excessive force? If so, which ones? 91 Obviously, requested interrogatory no. 11 is irrelevant because it involved a different defendant, one who received a jury verdict in his favor. Requested interrogatory nos. 6, 9 and 10, 12, and 15 are explicitly answered by the jury's verdict and its answers to the interrogatories that the court did submit. Requested interrogatories 1-5 and 7-8 go to the circumstances that preceded the defendants' use of excessive force. Preceding and attendant circumstances are relevant in any excessive force case, but to the extent of their relevance the answers to those requested interrogatories are implicit in the jury's verdict and its answers to the submitted interrogatories; to the extent they are not covered by the verdict and answers to the submitted interrogatories, the answers to the submitted interrogatories are irrelevant. 92 In other words, what force is excessive will depend upon the circumstances in which it is administered, but the jury in this case was instructed about that, and it found that the force used in this case was, in view of the circumstances, excessive. The jury also found that the force used was not administered to maintain or restore order or discipline but instead was inflicted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. No preceding circumstances could have justified excessive force administered for that specific purpose, at least not where it resulted in significant injury, which the jury found the force in this case did cause. 93 Requested interrogatories no. 13 and 14 go to the injuries Johnson suffered, but in answer to the interrogatories that were submitted the jury found that the excessive force Breeden and Gomez inflicted caused Johnson to suffer $25,000 worth of physical pain as well as emotional pain and mental anguish. To the extent, if any, that the answers to the requested interrogatories would have gone beyond those findings, they are not important to resolution of the qualified immunity issue. 94 In summary, given the jury's verdict, when read in light of the instructions, and its findings in response to the submitted interrogatories, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to submit the defendants' requested special interrogatories. The reason is that the answer to each requested special interrogatory was either covered by the verdict and jury findings, or it was irrelevant to the qualified immunity issue in light of the verdict and jury findings. 95 Having said that, we remind district courts that special jury interrogatories can play an important and even essential role in the proper disposition of a qualified immunity defense. Although the refusal to give the requested jury interrogatories was not reversible error in view of the particular circumstances of this case, including the nature of the constitutional violation claimed, the jury instructions, and the jury's answers to the interrogatories that were submitted, it will not always be so. Sometimes it will be reversible error not to submit requested jury interrogatories that will aid the district court in properly deciding a qualified immunity issue that survives the jury's verdict on the merits. For that reason, courts should proceed with caution before denying requested interrogatories that go to the factual circumstances of a case in which a qualified immunity defense has been asserted.