Holle v. Hopkins Cty Sheriff

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41192
Summary Calendar
SAM L. HOLLE, doing business as
Texachem Agricultural Service,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HOPKINS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:98-CV-335
USDC NO. 6:98-CV-336
--------------------
December 18, 2001
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Sam Holle sued the Hopkins County Sheriff’s Department for
violating his civil rights in connection with the seizure and sale
of property owned by his agricultural spraying business. The case
proceeded to a jury trial before the magistrate judge, and the jury
returned a verdict finding the Appellee liable and awarding damages
of $250,000. The Appellee moved for a new trial as to both
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
liability and damages. The magistrate judge granted the motion,
concluding that "the jury’s verdict of $250,000 clearly shocks the
conscience when compared to the evidence presented by the
plaintiff" and that "the total amount of $250,000 awarded by the
jury is factually insufficient and is against the great weight and
preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust."
The parties retried the case to a second jury. The second
jury determined that no constitutional violation occurred.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge subsequently ordered that Holle
take nothing and that the action be dismissed on its merits. Holle
now appeals the order granting the motion for a new trial. We
review for an abuse of discretion. See Fontenot v. Cormier, 56
F.3d 669, 676 (5th Cir. 1995).
The only evidence introduced during the first trial which
related to a damages claim was (1) Plaintiff’s testimony as to the
reasonable market value of his property and (2) testimony which
indicated that his property sold for less than the reasonable
market value at the sheriff’s sale. The evidence did not
demonstrate that any alleged constitutional violation on the part
of Hopkins County caused the failure of Holle’s fertilizer
business. Therefore, the $250,000 damage award, based almost
entirely on lost business profits, was not supported by the great
weight of the evidence.
Because the $250,000 damages award was not supported by the
2
evidence and shocked the conscience, the magistrate did not err in
granting a new trial on the issue of damages. The magistrate also
did not err in ordering a new trial on liability because the
liability issue was closely intertwined with the damages issue.
See Worsham v. City of Pasadena, 881 F.2d 1336, 1339 (5th Cir.
1989) (holding that district judge’s decision to grant a complete
retrial on both liability and damages was not an abuse of
discretion because the liability issue, i.e., whether City had
violated the Constitution, was closely intertwined with the damages
issue).
For these reasons, we find that the magistrate judge did not
commit reversible error in granting the new trial. Accordingly,
the second jury’s verdict that no constitutional violation occurred
is AFFIRMED.
3