David Dean, Sheriff, Ottawa County, Oklahoma v. Austin P. Bond, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Terral Ellis, II, Deceased

Respondent Austin P. Bond, as representative of Decedent Terral Ellis, II’s estate, brought suit against Petitioner Sheriff of Ottawa County in his official capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Petitioner violated Ellis’s constitutional right to receive medical care during his detention at the Ottawa County Jail. Because the claim is against Ottawa County itself, punitive damages were not available. At trial, Respondent’s counsel asked jurors to award damages based on deterrence in relation to punishment of Petitioner. The jury ultimately awarded $33,000,000 in damages. Petitioner then filed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, for New Trial, and for Remittitur, premised in part on the improper closing remarks. The District Court denied all three Motions and separately awarded fees and costs to Respondent. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Motions for Remittitur and New Trial, also based in part on the improper deterrence remarks. The Motion to Reconsider was also denied. Petitioner appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the denial of Petitioner’s post-trial motions and the fees and costs award. Despite assuming the contested closing remarks were improper, the District Court’s decisions were upheld because there was evidence to support the verdict. Petitioner’s subsequent Petition for Rehearing en banc was denied. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying a new trial to Petitioner. 2) Whether the Tenth Circuit’s Order is contrary to the precedent established in City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616

2. that punitive damages cannot be awarded against a governmental entity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit.

3. Whether the Tenth Circuit’s Order is contrary to the precedent established in Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 116 S.Ct. 221, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996) that a court has a duty to grant a new trial when it appears the jury has acted based on an improper motive.