Torres v. Hansen

Background

After a three-day trial and two days of deliberations, the jury reached a verdict on some claims but deadlocked on one claim against Hansen. The verdict was:

- On Claim 1, involving warrantless entry into an apartment, the jury found for Hansen and Smith. - On Claim 2, involving excessive force before handcuffing, the jury found for Smith but could not reach a verdict as to Hansen. - On Claim 3, involving excessive force after handcuffing, the jury found for Hansen.

The case did not settle, and the parties filed post-trial motions.

Torres’s Motion for a New Trial

Torres sought a new trial on all claims. He argued that the court’s summary-judgment order had already found that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the court improperly instructed the jury about “community caretaking” in connection with the warrantless-entry claim.

The court denied the motion. It explained that the summary-judgment order had found factual disputes requiring a trial; it had not found that the defendants violated Torres’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court also concluded that the community-caretaking instruction had a factual and legal basis because the evidence showed that officers responded to a report of a domestic disturbance and that the 911 caller reported fighting inside and outside the apartment.

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

The defendants asked the court to enter judgment for Hansen on the deadlocked excessive-force claim. They argued that Hansen was entitled to qualified immunity and that the trial evidence showed he used only very limited force while assisting Smith.

The court denied the motion. For judgment as a matter of law, the evidence must lack any legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for the opposing party. The court must view the evidence favorably to the nonmoving party and may not weigh evidence or decide which witnesses are credible.

The court found that the defendants’ arguments depended on accepting their version of events and rejecting Torres’s testimony. Torres testified differently about who he grabbed for, how the officers restrained him, and how much force Hansen used. Because the court could not resolve those credibility disputes after trial, it could not accept the defendants’ version as true for purposes of the motion.

Second Trial and Partial Verdict

The court concluded that a second trial was required, limited to Torres’s claim that Hansen used excessive force in the apartment before handcuffing him. The court stated that it would enter judgment on all claims after that trial. It scheduled a March 8, 2024 status conference by video to select a trial date. The parties may waive their right to a jury trial if they wish.

Trial Transcripts and Scheduling

The court granted Torres’s request for a copy of the trial transcripts to prepare for an appeal and the second trial. Because Torres was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court reporter was directed to prepare a copy of the previously produced transcript within 14 days at $1.00 per page, with the clerk paying the copying cost under Judicial Conference requirements.

The court vacated the scheduled hearing because it found the post-trial motions suitable for resolution without oral argument. It denied the post-trial motions, granted the transcript request, and scheduled the March 8, 2024 case-management conference.