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-