Robert D. SIKES, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Juan F. GAYTAN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Guard, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 218 F.3d 491

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: In this

section 1983 appeal, Robert Sikes, a Texas prisoner, claims that Juan Gaytan, a Texas prison guard, used excessive force against him and thereby violated his Eighth Amendment rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Sikes proved to a jury that on August 22, 1995, he was severely beaten by the defendant, a sergeant at the Connally Unit.

Specifically, Sikes presented evidence that, following his altercation with a prison guard (after which Sikes spit on the guard), Gaytan handcuffed him, took him to the ground, punched him in the face five or six times, and then repeatedly jumped up and down on his left arm until he heard a loud pop. As a result of this assault, Sikes suffered a dislocated left shoulder, injuries to his left elbow, conjunctival hemorrhaging to his left eye, loss of vision in his left eye, and severe bruising and lacerations to his face.

Additionally, he produced evidence that he suffers from posttraumatic stress syndrome resulting from this assault. The jury returned a verdict against Gay-tan in his individual capacity, finding that he had used excessive force against Sikes in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. On appeal, Gaytan seeks review of the district court’s denial of a separate jury interrogatory on the defense of qualified immunity.

Gaytan argues that the trial court erred when it denied his request to submit separate jury interrogatories on the issues of whether he violated Sikes’s constitutional rights and whether his actions were reasonable. Although Gaytan does not identify any authority to support his assertion that a separate jury interrogatory was required, he argues that the court confused the jury by submitting the issues in one jury interrogatory.

The trial court denied Gaytan’s request to submit separate interrogatories based on its belief that “the submission of the issue of liability and qualified immunity, as one issue eliminated the concern of irreconcilability.” In reaching this conclusion, the court was guided by our decision in Snyder v. Trepagnier, 142 F.3d 791 (5th Cir.1998), in which we discussed the potential conflict created by submitting separate jury interrogatories on liability and qualified immunity.

In Snyder, the district court submitted separate jury interrogatories on the issues of whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and whether the actions of the defendant were reasonable. Id. at 800. The jury returned what appeared to be an irreconcilable verdict— finding that the defendant had violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, but that the defendant’s actions were reasonable. Id. Based on these answers, however, the district court granted qualified immunity to the defendant. Id.

On appeal, we addressed the issue of whether there was an inherent conflict between a finding that the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated and a finding that the defendant, in violation those rights, acted reasonable. Id. The court, relying on Judge Higginbotham’s concurrence in Melear v.

Spears, 862 F.2d 1177, 1187-88 (5th Cir.1989)(stating that “it is possible for a jury to find that, although the actual circumstances of the search did not justify the officer’s behavior, the circumstances that appeared to the officer would have justified a search,” and thus the officer was shielded from liability by qualified immunity), held that “there is no internal conflict in the verdict.” Id. at 801.

In the course of the Snyder opinion, the court stated that: “A related question is whether the issues of liability and qualified immunity should have been fashioned as one issue or, as the district court submitted them, as two issues.” Id. at 800.

Although the Snyder court did not specifically address this question, Snyder can be read, as noted by Judge Garza in his able dissent, to. implicitly, permit “a trial court to combine qualified immunity and the liability issue in the same jury charge.” It is clear, however, that regardless of whether the trial court submits the issues of liability and qualified immunity in one or two interrogatories, the central focus is on whether the trial court correctly and clearly instructed the jury.

In making this determination, jury interrogatories are considered “in conjunction with the general ¡jury] charge” to determine if “the interrogatories adequately presented the contested issues to the jury.” Barton’s Disposal Service, Inc. v. Tiger Corp., 886 F.2d 1430, 1435 (5th Cir.1989)(eiting Dreiling v. General Electric Co., 511 F.2d 768, 774 (5th Cir.1975)).

In the case at bar, the court was very clear in instructing the jury on the defense of qualified immunity: If you find that the plaintiff has proven his claim, you must then consider the defendant’s defense that his conduct was objectively reasonable in the light of the legal rules clearly established at the time of the incident in issue and that the defendant is therefore not liable.

If, after considering the scope of discretion and responsibility generally given to prison officials in the performance of their duties, you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff has proved either (1) that the defendant was plainly incompetent, or (2) he knowingly violated the law regarding the plaintiffs constitutional rights, you must find for the plaintiff.

If, however, you find that the defendant had a reasonable belief that his actions did not violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, then you cannot find him liable even if the plaintiff’s rights were in fact violated as a result of the defendant’s objectively reasonable action. (Emphasis added). Thus, the question we must address is whether the court abused its discretion in deciding to combine the issues of liability and qualified immunity into a single interrogatory.

See Barton’s, 886 F.2d at 1434 (stating that “a trial court is afforded great latitude in the framing and structure of the instructions and the special interrogatories given to the jury, ... [and we will not] disturb that discretion absent a showing of abuse of discretion”). The court gave the following interrogatory: Considering all of the instruction in the jury charge, do you find that Plaintiff Robert D. Sikes proved by a preponderance of the evidence that on August 22, 1995, Defendant Juan F. Gaytan violated Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

In denying the defendant’s request for a separate jury interrogatory on qualified immunity, the trial court concluded that giving separate interrogatories created the possibility of confusing the jury, resulting in the return of “irreconcilable” answers. It is plausible that a jury could be confused by an interrogatory asking whether the force Gaytan used against Sikes amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, and then being asked in an immediately following interrogatory whether the conduct of Gaytan was reasonable.

Indeed, finding that the force used against Sikes was cruel and unusual would ordinarily seem to preclude the possibility of a finding that actions of Gaytan were reasonable. Still, we are constrained also to say that a plausible argument can be made that a separate interrogatory on qualified immunity, supported by a clear jury instruction, arguably could clarify rather than confuse the issue before the jury. In the light of this equipoise, we must conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this case by giving a single jury instruction on the issues of liability and qualified immunity.

The judgment of the district court is in all respects AFFIRMED. . Additionally, Gaytan appeals (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's decision to instruct the jury on future damages and medical expenses, and (2) the amount of the punitive damages award. The record reveals ample evidence on the issue of future damages to support the district court's decision to instruct the jury in this regard, and to support the jury's award of damages. See Esposito v.

Davis, 47 F.3d 164, 167 (5th Cir.1995)(stating that "there is no abuse of discretion in denying a motion for new trial unless there is [a] complete absence of evidence to support the verdict"). Further, when the amount of the punitive damages award is evaluated in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Cl. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996), it is clear that the award is not excessive. See id. at 574-75, 116 S.Ct. 1589. On cross-appeal, Sikes seeks review of the amount of attorney's fees awarded by the trial court.

The record shows that the court did not abuse its discretion by: (1) reducing the amount of recoverable fees on fees; and (2) reducing the award of attorney's fees by ten percent due to failure of Sikes to succeed on his claims against Gaytan in his official capacity. See Riley v. City of Jackson, 99 F.3d 757, 759 (5th Cir.1996)(stating that "this court reviews the district court’s award of attorney's fees authorized by statute for abuse of discretion”).