Theresa Martin v. James Lee, et al

Filing 511106809

Case: 09-30424

Document: 00511106809

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/11/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-30424 S u m m a r y Calendar May 11, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

T H E R E S A MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. J A M E S LEE; THE TOWN OF ADDIS, Defendants-Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Middle District of Louisiana U S D C No. 3:06-CV-00041

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* A p p e lla n t Theresa Martin was involved in an altercation with Appellee J a m e s Lee, an officer of the Addis Police Department, and Dexter Walker, an o ffic e r of the Brusly Police Department, in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. Martin w a s arrested and charged with "remaining after being forbidden" and "in te r fe r in g with duties of a police officer." At trial, all charges against Martin w e r e dismissed. Martin then filed a complaint in state court against Lee, Martin's

W a l k e r , the Addis and Brusly Police Departments, and others.
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Case: 09-30424

Document: 00511106809

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/11/2010

No. 09-30424 c o m p l a in t alleged that the officers and police departments were liable for d a m a g e s under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was removed to federal district court. I n preparation for trial, the parties submitted a Uniform Pretrial Order (" P r e t r ia l Order") to the district court. In ruling on several motions in limine r e g a r d i n g the exclusion of certain evidence, the district held that Martin's "false a rr e s t " claims had been abandoned because the only claim contained in the P r e t r ia l Order was for excessive force against Officer Lee. Ten months later, and t w o months before trial was set to begin, Martin filed a Motion for Leave to A m e n d the Pretrial Order ("Motion to Amend") so that she could assert her false a r r e s t claim. The district court denied the Motion to Amend. Martin now a p p e a ls , arguing that the district court erred by (1) ruling that her false arrest c la im was waived and (2) denying her Motion to Amend. Martin does not appeal fr o m the adverse jury verdict on her excessive force claim. F e d e r a l Rule of Civil Procedure 16 authorizes the district court to control a n d expedite discovery through pretrial orders. "It is a well-settled rule that a jo in t pretrial order signed by both parties supersedes all pleadings and governs t h e issues and evidence to be presented at trial." Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. C a p e c e , 141 F.3d 188, 206 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Branch-Hines v. Hebert, 939 F .2 d 1311, 1319 (5th Cir.1991)). Claims, issues, and evidence are narrowed by th e pretrial order, thereby focusing and expediting the trial. Elvis, 141 F.3d at 2 0 6 (claims not preserved in a joint pretrial order were waived); Branch-Hines, 9 3 9 F.2d at 1319 (the pretrial order asserted the plaintiff's full range of d a m a g e s). If a claim or issue is omitted from the final pretrial order, it may be w a iv e d , even if it appeared in the complaint. Elvis, 141 F.3d at 206. I n addition, our court gives the trial court "broad discretion to preserve the in t e g r it y and purpose of the pretrial order." Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d

2

Case: 09-30424

Document: 00511106809

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/11/2010

No. 09-30424 7 8 7 , 790-791 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Hodges v. United States, 597 F.2d 1014, 1 0 1 8 (5th Cir. 1979)). "For pretrial procedures to continue as viable mechanisms o f court efficiency, appellate courts must exercise minimal interference with trial c o u r t discretion in matters such as the modification of its orders." Hodges, 5 9 7 F.2d at 1017-1018. Thus, unless the trial court's ruling in the enforcement o f a pretrial order was a clear abuse of discretion that would deem the action a r b it r a r y , the ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. Geiserman, 893 F.2d at 7 9 0 ; Hodges, 597 F.2d at 1017. Appellant argues that her claim for false arrest was "eminently c o g n iz a b le " within a two or three sentence factual narrative stating that Martin w a s cuffed and placed in Office Lee's patrol car, issued a summons and released, a n d cleared of all charges at trial. The district court disagreed and held that o th e r than the excessive force claim, "nowhere in the final pretrial order was t h e r e any mention of any other claim under any other theory of law." District c o u r t s are encouraged to construe pretrial orders narrowly without fear of r e v e r s a l. Flannery v. Carroll, 676 F.2d 126, 129-130 (5th Cir. 1982) (the district c o u r t did not abuse its discretion where it narrowly construed the pretrial order to exclude certain claims, despite slight reference to those claims in the order). W e cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in narrowly c o n s t r u in g this Pretrial Order as it did. Thus, the false arrest claim was waived. A p p e l la n t also contends that the district court's denial of her motion to a m e n d was in error because the exhibits listed in the Pretrial Order showed her in t e n t io n to bring a false arrest claim against Lee. Appellant argues that both p a r tie s ' motions clearly anticipated her bringing a false arrest claim. Rule 16(e) p r o v id e s that the court may modify a final pretrial order "only to prevent m a n if e s t injustice." Refusal to grant an amendment to a pretrial order is with

3

Case: 09-30424

Document: 00511106809

Page: 4

Date Filed: 05/11/2010

No. 09-30424 in the trial court's discretion. Trinity Carton Co., Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing C o r p ., 767 F.2d 184, 193 n.13 (5th Cir. 1985). "Even though amendment of the p r e t r ia l order may be allowed where no surprise or prejudice to the opposing p a r ty results, where, as here, the evidence and the issue were known at the time o f the original pretrial conference, amendments may generally be properly r e f u s e d ." Id. That Martin delayed in seeking this relief until shortly before trial a ls o supports the court's decision. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in d e n y in g Martin's motion to amend. F o r the foregoing reasons, the judgment is A F F IR M E D .

4