Johnson v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 196

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(a) 194 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/7/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:09-cv-01264-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
59(a)
(ECF No. 194)

18

I.

Background

19

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Gonzales and

21

Murrieta for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States

22

Constitution. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.

23

(ECF Nos. 7, 120.) A jury trial was held on April 28 and 29, 2015. The jury reached a

24

unanimous verdict in favor of Defendants Gonzales and Murrieta, and judgment was entered on

25

April 29, 2015.

26
27

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff moved for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 49. Plaintiff contends that a new trial is warranted because the jury’s verdict goes

28
1

1

against the weight of the evidence presented at trial. (ECF No. 194.) Defendants did not file an

2

opposition; the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

3
4

II.

Motion for New Trial
A. Standard of Review

5

The Court may grant a new trial on all or some of the issues “after a jury trial, for any

6

reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.”

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). The district court has “considerable discretion in granting or

8

denying the motion.” Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 918 (9th Cir. 2003). A district

9

court’s denial of a motion for new trial will not be overturned “absent a clear abuse of

10

discretion,” i.e., “only where there is an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury’s

11

verdict.” Desrosiers v. Flight Int’l of Florida Inc., 156 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting

12

Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co., 72 F.3d 648, 656-57 (9th Cir. 1995), (when district court balances and

13

weighs evidence based on proper legal standards, denial is “virtually unassailable”).

14
15

B. Discussion
Plaintiff argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence presented at trial.

16

While substantial evidence supporting the verdict bars a judgment as a matter of law, the Court

17

may grant a new trial if, in its view, the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence.

18

Landes Const. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987). In

19

considering a motion for a new trial, the verdict is not presumed correct and the court need not

20

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the verdict was

21

rendered. Id. at 1371. The court must weigh the evidence and assess for itself the credibility of

22

witnesses and may set aside the verdict of the jury even though supported by substantial

23

evidence. Murphy v. City of Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1990). A new trial may be

24

granted if “the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, or is based upon evidence

25

which is false, or to prevent, in the sound discretion of the trial court, a miscarriage of justice.”

26

Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, 251 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 2001).

27
28

The Court finds that, based on the totality of the evidence, the jury verdict was not
against the clear weight of the evidence. In his motion, Plaintiff focuses on evidence of his
2

1

injuries, inconsistent statements from defense witnesses, testimony from his incarcerated

2

witnesses and his own testimony. (Doc. 94 at 5-7.) Plaintiff’s focus on inconsistencies and the

3

testimony proffered in support of his case alone is misplaced and ignores evidence that the jury

4

may have considered. The jury heard two days of testimony, saw more than a dozen exhibits and

5

heard testimony from ten different witnesses. The jury was entitled to weigh the evidence and

6

consider the credibility of witnesses. Based on these considerations, and the evidence presented

7

during the jury trial, the Court is not “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

8

been committed.” Landes Const. Co., Inc., 833 F.2d at 1371-72.

9

The jury could have concluded reasonably that Defendants did not use excessive force

10

following the takedown of Plaintiff by Defendant Gonzales. In particular, Officer Murrieta

11

testified that he did not observe any force by Officer Gonzales. Officer Murrieta further testified

12

that Plaintiff began to kick and twist his body side to side while on the ground and, at that point,

13

Officer Murrieta maintained control of Plaintiff’s legs, while Officer Gonzales maintained

14

control of Plaintiff’s upper body. Likewise, Officer Gonzales testified that after Plaintiff was on

15

the ground, Plaintiff was wiggling his upper body and kicking his legs and Officer Gonzales then

16

put his left hand on Plaintiff’ shoulder and his right hand on the small of Plaintiff’s back and held

17

him down. Officer Gonzales denied beating Plaintiff while he was on the ground and did not see

18

Officer Murrieta beat Plaintiff on the ground.

19

Although Plaintiff testified that after he was thrown on the ground both defendants

20

started punching him and he went unconscious, the clear weight of the evidence does not

21

necessarily resolve the excessive force claim in his favor. For example, Plaintiff’s own witness,

22

Inmate Madrid, admitted that he did not see any punches landed on Plaintiff while he was on the

23

ground. Similarly, another of Plaintiff’s witnesses, Inmate Mayhan, admitted that he could not

24

really see what was happening to Plaintiff.1 Additionally, Officer Edward Beltran testified that

25

when he responded to the incident, Plaintiff was conscious with no noticeable injuries. Officer

26

Keith Blevins also testified that Plaintiff was conscious after the incident and had only

27
28

1

Defendants also proffered testimony and exhibits demonstrating that Inmates Madrid and Mayhan were not on the
yard the day of the incident.
3

1

superficial injuries. Further, LVN Reed provided testimony that the only injuries to Plaintiff

2

were scratches, consistent with someone who may have fallen on gravel. Exhibit DX4/PX16

3

documented LVN Reed’s findings on examination, showing abrasions and scratches on

4

Plaintiff’s knees, his right temple and the right side of his cheek. LVN Reed also testified that

5

when she evaluated Plaintiff, she did not notice any signs of Plaintiff having been punched or

6

beaten. Based on the evidence presented, the jury could well have believed that Defendants

7

Murrieta and Gonzales did not use excessive force while Plaintiff was on the ground and that

8

Plaintiff did not sustain injuries consistent with a use of excessive force.

9

Much of what Plaintiff now argues deals with conflicting evidence. The jury was well

10

within its province to determine which evidence was correct based on credibility determinations.

11

It was not unreasonable for the jury to believe Defendants and their witnesses instead of Plaintiff

12

and his witnesses. The jury was instructed that they may accept some of the witness’ testimony,

13

all of it or none of it. Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the jury verdict is against the clear

14

weight of the evidence or was based on prejudicial and impermissible evidence. On the contrary,

15

admissible and relevant evidence supports the jury’s verdict on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive

16

force. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial shall be denied.

17
18
19

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, filed on May 7, 2015, is
HEREBY DENIED.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 7, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
4