United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 16, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-51083
Summary Calendar
AVNIEL AWAN ANTHONY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN MARTINEZ; ET AL.,
Defendants,
JUAN MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(5:03-CV-53)
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, AND DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Juan Martinez (J. Martinez), a prison
guard, appeals from a judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee
Avniel Awan Anthony, an inmate, following a jury trial in this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. J. Martinez argues that the
magistrate judge (MJ), who presided over the case with the parties’
consent, erred in denying J. Martinez’s motion for judgment as a
matter of law (JMOL). He raises three claims in support of this
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
argument: (1) Anthony failed to prove that he was subjected to
excessive force; (2) the jury’s verdict was inconsistent; and (3)
Anthony failed to overcome J. Martinez’s entitlement to qualified
immunity.
We review de novo the denial of a motion for JMOL. Green, 284
F.3d at 653. A JMOL may be rendered when “a party has been fully
heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary
basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1); accord Green, 284 F.3d at 653. In
considering a Rule 50(b) motion, we review all evidence in the
record and “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party.” Green, 284 F.3d at 653 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
I
Excessive Force
J. Martinez argues that (1) there was no evidence that Anthony
suffered any injuries as a result of the alleged assault, much less
injuries that were more than de minimis; (2) J. Martinez used force
only after Anthony refused to enter his cell, disobeyed orders to
stop making aggressive movements, and threatened J. Martinez and
another guard, Felipe Martinez (F. Martinez); (3) J. Martinez used
only the minimum amount of force necessary to take Anthony to the
ground and to preserve safety and security; (4) J. Martinez used
such necessary force because, before the alleged assault, he had
been informed that Anthony could escape from handcuffs and had
assaulted other prison staff; and (5) before using any force, J.
2
Martinez had ordered Anthony to return to his cell and warned
Anthony of the consequences if he refused this order.
To succeed on an excessive force claim, Anthony bears the
burden of showing: “(1) an injury (2) which resulted directly and
only from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need
and (3) the force used was objectively unreasonable.” Williams v.
Bramer, 180 F.3d 699, 703, clarified, 186 F.3d 633, 634 (5th Cir.
1999). The injury must be more than de minimis and must be
evaluated in the context in which the force was employed. Id.
The trial testimony established that J. Martinez punched,
kneed, and repeatedly struck Anthony with a tray slot bar while
Anthony was on the ground, handcuffed, and under the control of J.
Martinez and F. Martinez, prison guards. The trial testimony also
established that during the assault, Anthony received injuries,
including a bloody nose, bruises, and a knot on his head. And the
trial testimony showed that Anthony sought medical care for a
number of conditions, including seizures, migraine headaches, neck
and back pain, problems controlling his bowels, and nerve damage
and loss of feeling in his right hand, all allegedly caused by J.
Martinez’s assault.
Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in
favor of Anthony as the nonmoving party, and giving the deference
due to the jury’s credibility findings, there was a legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that J.
Martinez used force on Anthony that was clearly excessive and
objectively unreasonable, and that J. Martinez injured Anthony
3
during this use of force. See, e.g., Williams, 180 F.3d at 701-02,
704. J. Martinez’s claim that Anthony failed to establish
excessive force is unavailing.
II
Inconsistent Verdict
J. Martinez contends that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent
because it found Anthony was not entitled to compensatory damages
even though his civil rights were violated. J. Martinez argues
that it was thus error for the district court to award Anthony
nominal damages. These arguments too are meritless.
We have ruled that there is no inconsistency when a jury
awards no compensatory damages despite finding a violation of an
inmate’s constitutional rights. Archie v. Christian, 812 F.2d 250,
252 (5th Cir. 1987); Farrar v. Cain, 756 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir.
1985). We have also ruled that when such findings are made by the
jury, the district court may award nominal damages. Archie, 812
F.2d at 252; Farrar, 756 F.2d at 1152.
III
Qualified Immunity
J. Martinez asserts that the jury erred when it denied his
qualified immunity claim. Prison guards like J. Martinez cannot be
held liable for civil damages unless their conduct “violate[d]
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known.” Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329
F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). As noted above, there was sufficient evidence
4
to support the jury’s finding that J. Martinez used excessive force
against Anthony in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. At
the time of the incident, it was clearly established that inmates
have a constitutional right to be free from the use of excessive
force. See, e.g., Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5-10 (1992).
J. Martinez’s claim of qualified immunity was appropriately denied.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of
JMOL, and the jury’s verdict, are
AFFIRMED.
5