Document: 475 U.S. 796 106 S.Ct. 1571 89 L.Ed.2d 806 CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.v.Ronald HELLER. No. 85-531. April 21, 1986. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Ronald Heller sued petitioners, city of Los Angeles, and individual members the Angeles Police Commission, two police officers in United States District Court for Central California under provisions 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claimed damages by reason having been arrested without probable cause victim excessive force making arrest. The incident arose as a result stopping him because suspicion that he was driving while intoxicated. In words Appeals Ninth Circuit: 2 "The administered series field sobriety tests. Apparently dissatisfied with results, decided to take station undergo breath test. When notified arrest, however, became belligerent. One defendants, Officer Bushey, attempted handcuff him. An altercation ensued. course struggle, fell through plate glass window." v. 759 F.2d 1371, 1372-1373 (CA9 1985). 3 held bifurcated trial, first heard respondent's claims against one officers.* jury instructed would make out his constitutional claim if were reasonable cause, or "unreasonable force" exceeded necessary circumstances effect Id., at 1374. not on any affirmative defenses might have asserted officer. Tr. 80-2643 (CD Cal.), pp. 803-822, 843. returned verdict defendant officer respondent. then dismissed action concluding had exonerated there could be no basis assertion liability persons constituting its Commission. 4 appealed Circuit, court reversed judgment dismissing case petitioners even though it did disturb urged, apparently agreed, "the believed followed Department regulations, entitled substance defense good faith. Such belief negate existence injury" (footnote omitted). F.2d, 1373-1374. 5 difficulty this position is charged such faith which availed contends brief opposition certiorari issue qualified immunity presented jury, nonetheless considered evidence supported finding immunity. But theory instructions are given trial courts reviewed appeal juries act accordance them, see Aspen Skiing Co. Highlands Corp., 472 585, 604, 105 2847, 2858, 86 467 (1985), they do consider base their decisions legal questions respect charged. We think Appeals' search ambiguity unavailing; itself noted later opinion, "[b]ecause required [respondent] either due process found, jury's negative both claims." 1374, n. 3. This negative, seems us, conclusive only but also They thought legally responsible Bushey's actions; latter inflicted injury respondent, inconceivable liable stated: 6 "We must conclude general does foreclose suffered deprivation. Heller's Monell survived verdict. . verdict, course, conclusively determined arrest Heller. On other hand, equally clear whether application regulations limits has determined." 1374-1375. 7 an damages, neither New York City Dept. Social Services, 436 658, 98 2018, 56 611 (1978), nor our cases authorizes award municipal corporation based actions when fact concluded harm. If person hands officer, departmental authorized use constitutionally quite beside point. 8 petition granted, reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 9 It so ordered. Justice BRENNAN took part consideration decision case. 10 MARSHALL dissents from summary disposition, ordered affording parties prior notice opportunity file briefs merits. See Cuyahoga Valley R. Transportation Union, 474 3, 8, 286, ----, 88 (1985) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Maggio Fulford, 462 111, 120-121, 103 2261, 2265-2266, 76 794 (1983) dissenting). 11 STEVENS, whom joins, dissenting. 12 Whenever decides benefit argument merits, danger will opinion careful deliberation explication issues require. Today's "per curiam" fair illustration problem. important identified document. Court's dismiss city, Department, Commissioners necessarily rested assumptions: (1) inherent inconsistency between favor Bushey possible defendants (2) dismissal defendants. Far specifically addressing those issues, ground "become moot."1 similar vein, rests maxim "juries them." Ante, 798. my view, assumptions action—and reinstatement remotely present 13 * assumption inevitable entities; absence inconsistency, decision, it, simply inexplicable. 14 undisputed crashed plate-glass window after some kind Bushey. stopped intoxicated tests.2 entities, contended adopted policy condoning arrests, unlawful, injured time rights violated employed arresting 15 day before Judge into phases—the second entities. record contains explanation reveal counsel opposed bifurcation.3 16 proceeding considerable Department's custom introduced. expert witness testified regarding Angeles' officially sanctioned "escalating force," culminating notorious "chokehold."4 himself flight resulted attempt impose chokehold, carefully following official policy.5 superior, Sergeant Shrader, complete compliance policy.6 Finally, attorney repeatedly emphasized client's entirely established policy.7 17 submitting judge gave instruction stated used unreasonable "is light all surrounding circumstances."8 After deliberating several hours, 18 Thus, despite majority's contrary, perfectly obvious rejecting determine constitutionality city's policy—a subject received all. merely officer's "in circumstances"—which, included obeying orders policy. 19 As result, alone, plainly erred "moot" suit correct reverse dismissal.9 II 20 view correctly exonerating holding policy, appropriate response context trial. 21 Inconsistent verdicts are, familiar phenomenon. criminal case, inconsistent allowed stand.10 civil rule less clear.11 Nevertheless, contrast blithe today, far certain action—the dismissal—was response, somehow entities created inconsistency. First, ignores that, circumstances, retains authority, allow stand.12 Second, faced duty read manner resolve inconsistencies.13 Third, upon receiving responsibility, retain half resubmit question jury.14 genuinely support "inconsistent" verdicts, remedy ordinarily, accept other, order new trial.15 22 Although fails address raises (if, fact, initial accepted) different set principles should apply trial—more narrowly, over objection plaintiff. Because argued, I possibility bifurcation difference, immediately apparent me why should. same passed entities' liability, relied adduced phase well phase. At very least, unclear normal devices verdict—construing resolves inconsistency; resubmitting ordering trial—should unavailable context. 23 unprecedented, ill-considered, far-reaching happens correct, class tactical weapon great value. By persuading judges bifurcate trials principal agents named require bring first, may obtain whatever intangible factors prompted multitude past years; longer abide mechanisms mitigate inconsistencies.16 Perhaps current widespread concern about potential liabilities municipalities, doubt it. Cf. Oklahoma Tuttle, 471 808, 843-844, 2427, 2446-2447, 85 791 (STEVENS, III 24 today reverses interlocutory dramatically conflict settled principles. mistakenly assumes defendants; perceived coincidentally, achieves these results aid argument, relies anonymous author explain what done. 25 respectfully dissent. granted Court. Record 844 ("With action, now convinced become moot time"); id., Doc. 209, ("the plaintiff's ANGELES, BOARD POLICE COMMISSIONERS DEPARTMENT, Services York, 658 [98 (1978) ] moot"). altercation, alcohol level test, found one-tenth body law. 134-136. never Ibid. 203, minutes chambers conference (Oct. 18, 1982) ("Court confers Counsel re: Pretrial order, Jury 10/19/82, Instructions, Defendant's amended list Plaintiff opposes Bifurcation. Defendant oppose bifurcation"). 5, 157-158 (testimony James Fyfe) ("The employs scale escalation force. [T]he varies every major department know of. says hold work next degree chokehold or, calls carotid control modified bar arm holds"). Lyons, 461 95, 97, 1, 1660, 1663, 75 675 (describing chokehold); 114-119, 1671-1674 dissenting) (reviewing chokeholds noting deaths since 1975). Lyons pending 99-100 ("As began steps forward applied—I put left around his—the portion tried get front throat. You blade your wrist person's we supposed trying someone custody verbal commands asking verbally demanding verbally. called pain compliance, twist someone's where hurts them they'll comply request. throat pressure throat, hold"). 279-281 Shrader) "accelerated theory" "within policy"). See, e.g., 170 ("[T]he being taught Department"); 279 (referring accelerated has"); 281 do"). counsel's closing 699 ("In it's that's defendant. It's Bushey"); 706 (citing "testimony concerning own policies procedures ibid. exactly he's reasons it"); 716 ("It's who's defendant"); 718 ("Officer job"). "Whether preventing escape, overcoming resistance expressive [sic], violent circumstances." 815-816. concluded: substance, deprived liberty cause. jurors therefore embodies amount excessive. conclusion derived incorporate 'escalating force,' standard independent regulations. cannot say assurance." 1374 1985) Powell, 469 57, 471, 83 (1984) (reaffirming can stand); Harris Rivera, 454 339, 345, 102 460, 464, 70 530 (1981) ("Inconsistency sufficient setting aside"); Hoag Jersey, 356 472, 78 829, 835, 913 (1958) ("[J]ury sometimes irrational"); Dotterweich, 320 277, 279, 64 134, 135, L.Ed. 48 (1943) ("Whether carelessness compromise suffer penalty instead increasing, were, cost running business corporation, immaterial. Juries indulge precisely motives vagaries"); Dunn States, 284 390, 393, 52 189, 190, (1932) ("Consistency necessary"). Ulster County Allen, 442 140, 168, 99 2213, 2230, 60 777 (1979) (BURGER, C.J., concurring) ("Courts long practical deciding factfinders, unlike negotiators, permitted luxury reached compromise"). Bickel, Jury—Inconsistent Verdicts Federal Courts, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 649, 654 (1950) ("[T]here equivalent precedent [v. supra overrule upsetting verdicts. outlined extending thus plausible one. unanswerable") Indeed, explaining disturbed, Brandeis cited leading permissibility Fairmount Glass Works Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 474, 485, 53 252, 255, 77 439 (1933) ). F. & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure 384 (3d ed. refusal aside obviously representing frequently, properly, upheld"); 394 ("One values ability reflect community sense over-all fairness, coincide written law give"); Karcesky Laria, 382 Pa. 227, 235, 114 A.2d 150, 154 (1955) ("Where negligence, contributory both, conflicting free doubt, power uphold time-honored right render sustain substantial"); Jayne Mason Dixon Lines, Inc., 124 317, 319 (CA2 1941) (L. Hand) ("We mean imply however fatal wife's recovery rational reconciliation possible. 390 [52 ]"). Note, Trials, 45 1230, 1234 (observing jurisdictions, "a master complain solely servant master, denied") Gallick Baltimore Ohio 372 108, 119, 659, 666, 618 (1963) (In considering answers special Page 806-Continued. "it harmonize answers, reading them. reconcile findings, exegesis necessary, disregard remand trial"); Atlantic Gulf Stevedores, Ellerman Ltd., 369 355, 364, 82 780, 786, 798 (1962) makes interrogatories consistent, resolved way"); Affolder Chi. St. L. 339 96, 509, 94 683 (1950); Works, U.S., S.Ct., 255 (Brandeis, J.) ("Appellate slow impute duties, want diligence perspicacity appraising conduct"); Union Pacific Hadley, 246 330, 334, 38 318, 319, 62 751 (1918) (Holmes, ("[S]ince [jury] attributed duty. Beyond attributing misconduct concerned inquire wrong"). Dickerson Pritchard, 256, 259 (CA7 1983) properly resubmitted reconsideration"); University Computing Lykes-Youngstown 504 518, 547 (CA5 1974) ("[I]f returns clarification"); Hopkins Coen, 431 1055, 1059 (CA6 1970) (upon receipt sent "back room deliberate back verdicts"); Alston West, 340 856, 858 1965) (when exercised discretion jury"). Malley-Duff Associates Crown Life Ins. 734 133, 145 (CA3) Questions 2(A), 2(B) inconsistent. vacate $900,000 state trial"), cert. denied, 1072, 564, 505 (1984); Global Van Inc. Nebeker, 541 865, 868 (CA10 1976) inconsistencies show confusion serve mandate Wood Holiday Inns, 508 167, 175 1975) faces indicating confused, certainly required"). Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 49(b) (appropriate resubmission trial). (in negligence flower shop driver automobile accident, initially driver; resubmitted, employer driver).

Category: 1