Karen Keil v. Edward Bearden ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2694
___________________________
Karen Backues Keil
Plaintiff Appellee
v.
Jane or John Doe #1
Defendant
Edward Bearden
Defendant Appellant
Jane or John Doe #2; Jane or John Doe #3
Defendants
___________________________
No. 22-2697
___________________________
Lynnsey Christie Betz
Plaintiff Appellee
v.
Edward Bearden
Defendant Appellant
Jane or John Doe #1; Jane or John Doe #2
Defendants
___________________________
No. 22-2698
___________________________
Ashley Olsen Zieser
Plaintiff Appellee
v.
Edward Bearden
Defendant Appellant
Jane or John Doe #1; Jane or John Doe #2
Defendants
___________________________
No. 22-2699
___________________________
Trenady George
Plaintiff Appellee
v.
Edward Bearden
Defendant Appellant
____________
-2-
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph
____________
Submitted: March 10, 2023
Filed: March 16, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, former correctional officer Edward Bearden
appeals following the district court’s1 judgment on an adverse jury verdict. Four
plaintiffs sued Bearden under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he violated the Eighth
Amendment by sexually assaulting them when they were inmates at the Chillicothe
Correctional Center. The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the
actions for trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), and the jury found
Bearden liable in each case, awarding each plaintiff $3.5 million in compensatory
damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages. Bearden moved for a new trial under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), or for remittitur, and the district court denied
his motion. We affirm.
We find no abuse of discretion in consolidating plaintiffs’ actions for trial, as
consolidation promoted judicial efficiency and outweighed the minimal prejudice to
Bearden, and as the identical damages awarded to each plaintiff were insufficient to
show jury confusion. See Eghnayem v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 873 F.3d 1304, 1315 (11th
1
The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.
-3-
Cir. 2017) (rejecting argument that consolidation led jury to believe plaintiffs’ claims
were more likely to be true, and noting that, absent consolidation, plaintiffs would
have been able to submit evidence of others with similar injuries; identical damages
awards, without more, were not sufficient evidence of juror confusion to show abuse
of discretion in consolidation); EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 550-51 (8th Cir.
1998) (standard of review; consolidation was appropriate to avoid inefficiency of
separate trials involving related parties, witnesses, and evidence).
We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary ruling
excluding the recording of a telephone call between Bearden and plaintiff Trenady
George. See United States v. Wallace, 852 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 2017) (no abuse
of discretion in excluding appellant’s videotaped statement as cumulative of her
testimony regarding statement); Coterel v. Dorel Juv. Grp., Inc., 827 F.3d 804, 807
(8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review; appellate court will not disturb jury’s verdict
unless district court clearly abused its discretion in evidentiary ruling and error
prejudicially influenced outcome of trial); Amplatz v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 823
F.3d 1167, 1172-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (appellant was not prejudiced by exclusion of
evidence, as other evidence relating to matter was admitted, and she could have called
witness to adduce excluded evidence).
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of remittitur, particularly
given the reprehensibility of Bearden’s conduct. See J.K.J. v. Polk Cnty., 960 F.3d
367, 376 (7th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (affirming judgment awarding identical damages
to 2 inmates who sued corrections officer for sexually assaulting them; while assaults
uniquely affected each inmate, they did not necessitate different damages amounts);
Miller v. Huron Reg’l Med. Ctr., 936 F.3d 841, 846 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of
review; remittitur is reserved for cases where verdict is so grossly excessive as to
shock conscience); Lee ex rel. Lee v. Borders, 764 F.3d 966, 975-76 (8th Cir. 2014)
(upholding jury award of $3 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in
punitive damages to § 1983 plaintiff who was sexually assaulted once by worker at
-4-
mental health facility and who developed post-traumatic stress disorder; worker’s
conduct abused position of trust and was reprehensible, justifying punitive damages).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-5-