Andrich v. Dusek et al
Filing
465
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 458 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 7/29/22. (BAC)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Devin Andrich,
No. CV-17-00173-TUC-RM
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
Keith Dusek,
13
ORDER
Defendant.
14
15
On May 5, 2022, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendant Keith Dusek on
16
Plaintiff Devin Andrich’s First Amendment retaliation claim. (Doc. 440.) The Clerk
17
entered judgment on May 6, 2022. (Doc. 444.) Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s
18
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or Motion for New Trial. (Doc. 458.)
19
Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 461), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 464). For the
20
following reasons, the Motion will be denied.1
21
I.
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law2
22
During trial, Plaintiff orally moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) on his First Amendment retaliation claim. (Doc.
24
453 at 114-115.)
25
Defendant acted under the color of state law and that Plaintiff engaged in activity
26
protected by the First Amendment. (Id. at 115.) The Court denied the oral Rule 50(a)
Plaintiff argued that the evidence presented at trial showed that
27
28
1
2
The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for decision without oral argument.
As the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, the Court discusses only those
facts pertinent to the pending Motion.
1
Motion. (Id. at 115.)
2
In his Rule 50(b) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Plaintiff
3
argues that the trial evidence shows: (1) he engaged in protected conduct, as the Court
4
instructed the jury to find; (2) Defendant took an adverse action against him by sending
5
him to a detention cell; (3) Plaintiff’s protected conduct was a substantial or motivating
6
factor behind Defendant’s actions; (4) Defendant’s conduct chilled Plaintiff’s First
7
Amendment rights; and (5) Defendant’s conduct did not reasonably advance a legitimate
8
correctional goal. (Doc. 458 at 2-14.) With respect to causation, Plaintiff argues that he
9
presented circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive by showing a proximity in time
10
between his protected conduct and Defendant’s decision to send him to a detention cell,
11
by showing that Defendant expressed opposition to his protected conduct by denying his
12
request for a transfer from the Catalina Unit to the Whetstone Unit, and by showing that
13
Defendant’s proffered reasons for his actions were pretextual. (Id. at 6-12.) Plaintiff
14
argues that he established pretext by presenting evidence that Defendant withheld, during
15
the Department Order 805 review process, information concerning an email he had sent
16
to the Whetstone Unit concerning Plaintiff’s request to be transferred back to that unit, as
17
well as the fact that the Whetstone Unit had agreed to accept Plaintiff back. (Id. at 10-
18
12.)
19
In response, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a matter
20
of law because he has not shown that the trial evidence conclusively established every
21
element of his claim. (Doc. 461 at 1-5.) In particular, Defendant argues that the evidence
22
does not conclusively establish causation, because ample evidence shows Defendant
23
“was motivated by safety concerns and the dictates of policy rather than retaliatory
24
animus.” (Id. at 2-4.)3
25
....
26
3
27
28
In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant violated Department Order 805 by sending
Plaintiff to a detention unit but not interviewing him within one business day. (Doc. 464
at 1-3.) The Court declines to consider this argument because it was raised for the first
time in Plaintiff’s Reply and Defendant therefore had no opportunity to respond to it. See
Bazuaye v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“Issues raised for the
first time in [a] reply brief are waived.”).
-2-
1
A.
2
A party may move for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil
3
Procedure 50(a) before a case is submitted to the jury. A Rule 50(a) motion for judgment
4
as a matter of law must “specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the
5
movant to the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2).
Legal Standard
6
A party may renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) no
7
later than 28 days after the entry of judgment in a jury trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). “[A]
8
party cannot raise arguments in its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law
9
under Rule 50(b) that it did not raise in its pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion.” OTR Wheel
10
Eng’g, Inc. v. West Worldwide Servs., Inc., 897 F.3d 1008, 1016 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal
11
quotation marks omitted).
12
“The test [on a Rule 50(b) motion] is whether the evidence, construed in the light
13
most favorable to the nonmoving party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that
14
conclusion is contrary to that of the jury.” Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim, 840 F.3d
15
592, 604 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In considering a Rule 50(b)
16
motion, the court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
17
party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Colony Cove Props., LLC
18
v. City of Carson, 888 F.3d 445, 450 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and alteration
19
marks omitted)). In ruling on a Rule 50(b) motion, the court may “(1) allow judgment on
20
the verdict . . . ; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of
21
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
22
B.
23
As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s Rule 50(b) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a
24
Matter of Law raises arguments not made in Plaintiff’s oral Rule 50(a) Motion.
25
Furthermore, even considering the newly raised arguments, Plaintiff has not shown that
26
he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Though the jury could have reached a
27
verdict in Plaintiff’s favor based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury was not
28
required to do so.
Discussion
-3-
1
There was sufficient evidence presented at trial from which the jury reasonably
2
could have concluded that Defendant’s conduct was motivated not by retaliatory animus
3
but by concern for Plaintiff’s safety and the dictates of Department Order 805. Although
4
the proximity in time between Plaintiff’s grievances and Defendant’s conduct is
5
circumstantial evidence from which the jury may have logically been able to infer
6
retaliatory motive, see Dawson v. Entek Int’l, 630 F.3d 928, 937 (9th Cir. 2011), it is not
7
conclusive evidence requiring a finding of retaliatory motive.
8
reasonably could have concluded that Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s transfer request
9
was just that—a denial of a transfer request—rather than opposition to Plaintiff’s
10
In addition, the jury
grievances.
11
Furthermore, the jury reasonably could have found that Defendant’s proffered
12
reasons for his actions were credible. Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter expressing concern
13
that his placement in the Catalina Unit would cause inmates in the Whetstone Unit to
14
conclude that he had ratted on them or voluntarily entered protective custody. (Doc. 463-
15
2 at 5 (Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 16).) Defendant testified that he received the letter on
16
November 24, 2015, and interviewed Plaintiff regarding the letter that same day. (Doc.
17
453 at 37-38, 46-48, 93-94.) Defendant further testified that he was concerned Plaintiff
18
was in danger on the Catalina Unit based on what Plaintiff stated in the letter and during
19
the interview; that prison policy requires an employee to begin the 805 review process if
20
the employee becomes aware that an inmate is in danger; and that Department Order 805
21
mandates that an inmate be sent to the detention unit while he is under 805 review. (Id. at
22
48, 61, 93-97, 100, 105.) Defendant also testified that he did not consider information
23
about the email he had sent to the Whetstone Unit regarding Plaintiff’s transfer request to
24
be relevant to the safety concerns raised in Plaintiff’s letter. (Id. at 49, 54.) Deputy
25
Warden Eric Hall similarly testified that information regarding a potential transfer to the
26
Whetstone Unit was not relevant to the protective custody issue because Plaintiff’s letter
27
expressed concern that inmates at Whetstone would perceive him as a rat, and therefore
28
Hall would not have approved a transfer to Whetstone. (Id. at 136-137.) Furthermore,
-4-
1
Protective Custody Administrator Marlene Coffey testified that an inmate cannot direct
2
which unit he will accept as an alternative placement to protective custody. (Doc. 453 at
3
143.) Coffey also testified that Plaintiff’s 805 packet complied with prison policy. (Id. at
4
159.)
5
The jury could have reasonably credited the above testimony and found that it
6
supports Defendant’s proffered reasons for placing Plaintiff in a detention unit—namely,
7
concern for Plaintiff’s safety and the requirements of Department Order 805. In addition,
8
the jury reasonably could have concluded, based on the above testimony and other
9
evidence presented at trial, that Defendant’s actions served legitimate penological
10
goals—namely, promoting inmate safety through the application of Department Order
11
805. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown that the evidence, viewed in the light most
12
favorable to Defendant, permits only one reasonable conclusion and that the jury’s
13
verdict is contrary to that conclusion. See Estate of Diaz, 840 F.3d at 604. Plaintiff’s
14
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law will be denied.
15
II.
Motion for New Trial
16
In his Motion for New Trial, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to a new trial
17
because the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence and because Defendant
18
falsely testified that he provided Plaintiff all documents relevant to the 805 review even
19
though he withheld a November 24, 2015 email to the prison mental health department
20
concerning Plaintiff. (Doc. 458 at 14-17.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff “cites virtually
21
no evidence” and offers no on-point arguments to show that the jury’s verdict was against
22
the weight of the evidence. (Doc. 461 at 5.) Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s
23
“blatant[] misrepresent[ation]” of a “stale discovery dispute” does not support his request
24
for a new trial. (Id. at 6-7.) In reply, Plaintiff argues that, because Defendant testified he
25
provided all emails pertaining to the 805 review to Plaintiff, “the jury mistakenly
26
believed” that it had all relevant emails during its deliberations. (Doc. 464 at 3-4.)
27
A.
28
A court may grant a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of
Legal Standard
-5-
1
Civil Procedure “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an
2
action at law in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). “Such reasons may include a
3
verdict that is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, a verdict based upon false or
4
perjurious evidence, or to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice.” Crowley v. Epicept
5
Corp., 883 F.3d 739, 751 (9th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (internal quotation and alteration
6
marks omitted). “The grant of a new trial is ‘confided almost entirely to the exercise of
7
discretion on the part of the trial court.’” Murphy v. City of Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183,
8
186 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980)).
9
B.
Discussion
10
In arguing that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, Plaintiff states that
11
Defendant did not attempt mediation with Plaintiff and violated Department Order 805
12
procedures by withholding relevant information. (Doc. 458 at 15-16.) However, based
13
on the testimony discussed in Section I(B), supra, the jury reasonably could have
14
concluded that information concerning Plaintiff’s transfer request to Whetstone was not
15
relevant to Plaintiff’s 805 review. Furthermore, Defendant testified that he did not
16
initiate mediation proceedings because Plaintiff did not identify any specific inmates with
17
whom he had issues, and Defendant’s understanding of the mediation process was that it
18
involved mediating with other inmates. (Doc. 453 at 66.) Plaintiff has not shown that the
19
jury’s verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence.
20
Nor has Plaintiff shown that he is entitled to a new trial based on Defendant’s
21
alleged failure to disclose a November 24, 2015 email to the prison mental health
22
department. Prior to trial but nearly three years after the close of discovery in this case,
23
Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court order Defendant and the Arizona
24
Attorney General’s Office to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt
25
for failing to produce an email that Plaintiff alleged Defendant sent to the prison mental
26
health department on November 24, 2015. (Doc. 410.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s
27
request, finding that Plaintiff had not shown why the Court should entertain his discovery
28
dispute at such a late juncture and had further failed to identify any specific discovery
-6-
1
request to which the November 24 email would be relevant. (Doc. 422 at 5-6.)
2
Plaintiff contends in his Motion for New Trial that he sent Defendant a request for
3
production seeking any emails referencing Plaintiff that were “exchanged between or
4
among Arizona Department of Corrections’ staff” and Defendant from October 27, 2015
5
and September 1, 2017. (Doc. 458 at 16-17; see also Doc. 464 at 4.) But Defendant
6
testified at trial that he did not send an email to the mental health department concerning
7
Plaintiff on November 24, 2015; rather, a complex movement officer notified mental
8
health via email. (Doc. 453 at 78.) Furthermore, the jury heard testimony about the
9
email, the Court informed the jury that the email was not part of any of the trial exhibits
10
(see Doc. 453 at 78-79), Plaintiff has not raised any grounds for reconsidering this
11
Court’s prior conclusion that Plaintiff failed to raise his discovery dispute concerning the
12
email in a timely manner (Doc. 422), and Plaintiff has not shown how the email would
13
have affected the jury’s verdict.
14
15
16
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law or Motion for New Trial (Doc. 458) is denied.
Dated this 29th day of July, 2022.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?