Davis v. Woodford et al

Filing 182

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/23/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 175 Motion for New Trial. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

13

16

2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB

Plaintiff,

14
15

No.

v.
EDDIE SIMMERSON, ANTHONY
AMERO, CHARLES HOUGHLAND and
BRYON VON RADER,

17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE A DIRECTED VERDICT

Defendants.

18
Plaintiff Charles T. Davis (“Plaintiff”) moves for a “new

19
20

trial or in the alternative a directed verdict due to fraud”

21

(Doc. #175).

22

Houghland, and Bryon Von Rader (collectively “Defendants”) oppose

23

the motion (Doc. #177). 1

24

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

25

///

26

///

Defendants Eddie Simmerson, Anthony Amero, Charles

For the reasons that follow,

27
1

28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
1

1
2

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a California prison inmate, brought this suit

3

against Defendants, alleging civil rights violations.

The matter

4

was tried before a jury, and a verdict was returned, finding for

5

Defendants on all causes of action.

6

in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff, Plaintiff submitted a

7

motion for a new trial or in the alternative, a directed verdict

8

due to fraud.

9

for a directed verdict as one for judgment as a matter of law.

After judgment was entered

The Court will hereinafter reference the request

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

II.
A.

OPINION

Legal Standard
1.

Judgment as a Matter of Law

Plaintiff moves for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).
After a jury has returned a verdict, Rule 50(b) permits a

17

party to renew its prior Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a

18

matter of law.

19

951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009); Mitri v. Walgreen Co., No. 1:10-CV-

20

00538 AWI, 2014 WL 6886835, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2014).

21

motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when “the

22

evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

23

party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that

24

conclusion is contrary to the jury's verdict.”

25

Eugene, 736 F.3d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 2013); Harper v. City of

26

L.A., 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir. 2008).

27

relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to

28

support [the jury's] conclusion,” then a Rule 50(b) motion should

See EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d

2

A renewed

Hagen v. City of

If there is “such

1

be denied.

2

50(b) motion, a court should review all of the evidence in the

3

record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and

4

must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

5

party.

6

150–51 (2000); see Harper, 533 F.3d at 1021.

7

reasonable inference cannot be supported by only threadbare

8

conclusory statements instead of significant probative evidence;”

9

nor may a jury's conclusion be based on mere speculation.

Hagen, 736 F.3d at 1257.

When considering a Rule

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
However, “a

10

Lakeside–Scott v. Multnomah Cnty., 556 F.3d 797, 802–03 (9th Cir.

11

2009).

12

The court “may not make credibility determinations or weigh

13

the evidence” and “must disregard all evidence favorable to the

14

moving party that the jury is not required to believe.”

15

530 U.S. at 150–51; see Harper, 533 F.3d at 1021.

16

must accept the jury's credibility findings consistent with the

17

verdict . . . [and] may not substitute its view of the evidence

18

for that of the jury.”

19

Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001).

20

must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, which

21

is evidence adequate to support the jury's conclusion, even if it

22

is also possible to draw a contrary conclusion.”

23

Johnson, Rodenburg, & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 955 (9th Cir.

24

2011); Harper, 533 F.3d at 1021.

25

motion is a renewed motion, “a party cannot properly raise

26

arguments in its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of

27

law under Rule 50(b) that it did not raise in its pre-verdict

28

Rule 50(a) motion.”

Reeves,

“The court

Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components,
“A jury's verdict

McCollough v.

Finally, because a Rule 50(b)

Go Daddy, 581 F.3d at 961; Freund v. Nycomed
3

1

Amersham, 347 F.3d 752, 761 (9th Cir. 2003).

2
3

2.

New Trial

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1)(a) provides:

“The

4

court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the

5

issues--and to any party . . . after a jury trial, for any reason

6

for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at

7

law in federal court.”

8
9

“[R]ule 59 does not specify the grounds on which a motion
for a new trial may be granted”; therefore, district courts must

10

look to “grounds that have been historically recognized.”

11

v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003);

12

see also Hunt v. Fields, No. 2:09-CV-3525 KJM AC, 2014 WL

13

1757211, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2014).

14

contrary to the weight of the evidence or is based on false or

15

perjurious evidence; or unfairness to the moving party.

Molski

16

v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007).

A court

17

may order a new trial if an erroneous evidentiary ruling

18

substantially prejudiced a party or if its instructions were

19

erroneous or inadequate.

20

Allstate Ins. Co., 278 F.3d 979, 985 n. 24 (9th Cir. 2002).

21

Zhang

These include a verdict that is

Harper, 533 F.3d at 1030; Jazzabi v.

“The grant of a new trial is ‘confided almost entirely to

22

the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court.’”

23

Murphy v. City of Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1990)

24

(quoting Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36

25

(1980)).

26

weigh the evidence and credibility of the witnesses,” it should

27

not grant a new trial “merely because it might have come to a

28

different result from that reached by the jury.”

Even though in the Rule 59 context “the trial court may

4

Roy v.

1

Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 896 F.2d 1174, 1176 (9th Cir. 1990)

2

(internal quotation marks omitted).

3

District of California Local Rule 291.2.provides:

4
5
6
7
8
9

In addition, the Eastern

Motions for new trial shall state with specific
references to relevant portions of any existing record
and to any supporting affidavits: (1) the particular
errors of law claimed, (2) if a ground is
insufficiency of the evidence, the particulars
thereof, and (3) if a ground is newly discovered
evidence, the particulars thereof, together with a
full[,] complete description of the facts relating to
the discovery of such evidence and the movant's
diligence in connection therewith. A motion for new
trial and any opposition thereto shall be supported by
briefs.

10
11
12
13

B.

Analysis
1.

Judgment as a Matter of Law (“Directed Verdict”)

Plaintiff contends he is entitled to judgment as a matter of

14

law because (1) Defendants’ counsel committed fraud during the

15

discovery process and (2) there is adequate evidence supporting

16

the conclusion the jury rested its verdict on something other

17

than the evidence.

18

Motion at p. 3.

Defendants first contend the motion for judgment as a matter

19

of law should be denied because Plaintiff did not make a Rule

20

50(a) motion before the case was submitted to the jury, a

21

prerequisite to renewing the motion after the verdict has been

22

returned pursuant to Rule 50(b).

23

argues this procedural issue should not be fatal as it would

24

allow Defendants to “benefit from their own wrongdoing.”

25

(Doc. #180) at pp. 1-2.

26

Rule 50(b) motion despite Plaintiff’s failure to make a timely

27

Rule 50(a) motion.

28

Opp. at pp. 2-3.

Plaintiff

Reply

The Court will address the merits of the

Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ counsel committed “deliberate
5

1

fraud,” acted in “bad faith,” and engaged in “reckless conduct”

2

resulting in “prejudicial error” and “substantial and injurious

3

effect.”

4

such allegations, and the Court denies the motion as to these

5

grounds.

6

Motion at pp. 5-7.

The record simply does not support

Plaintiff next contends the jury’s verdict rested on

7

something other than evidence as indicated by the jury returning

8

a verdict “too fast.”

9

evidence the jury’s verdict was based on anything but the

Motion at p. 8.

The Court finds no

10

evidence.

11

error on these combined grounds warranting a directed verdict.

12

Even putting aside Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

13

procedural requirements of Rule 50, the Court finds the record

14

contains “evidence adequate to support the jury's conclusion,”

15

and therefore denies the motion for judgment as a matter of law.

16

McCollough, 637 F.3d at 955.

17
18

The Court also does not find there was cumulative

2.

New Trial

Plaintiff contends he is entitled to a new trial because the

19

Court erred in the following ways: (1) by excluding eighteen

20

exhibits needed by Plaintiff to establish the allegations that

21

Defendants’ conduct was motivated by a systemic custom and policy

22

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

23

(“CDCR”); (2) by denying his motion to compel discovery

24

responses; (3) by refusing to incorporate Plaintiff’s questions

25

into voir dire; (4) by not including Plaintiff’s specific request

26

for $20,000 in compensatory damages in the jury instructions;

27

(5) by defining the distinction between retaliatory damages and

28

the injury that supports damages; (6) by not providing separate
6

1

verdict forms and jury instructions defining oppression and

2

intimidation as requested for “pin-point findings”; (7) by

3

refusing to issue subpoenas to Plaintiff’s witnesses; (8) by

4

dismissing the claims against previously named defendants

5

Runnels, Meier, Barns, and Miranda; (9) by not allowing Plaintiff

6

to raise his state claims; and (10) by denying Plaintiff counsel

7

when he was on medication that mentally impaired his ability to

8

prosecute the case.

9

Motion at pp. 3-4.

After considering Plaintiff’s contentions, the Court finds

10

no basis upon which to grant a new trial.

11

each ground cited by Plaintiff briefly in turn.

The Court will address

12

The Court’s exclusion of evidence regarding a custom,

13

policy, practice and pattern of CDCR was not error as the only

14

claims that survived to trial were against the individual

15

Defendants.

16

any citations to the record or evidence how denial of his motion

17

to compel was in error or would support the granting of a new

18

trial.

19

dire are similarly baseless.

20

selection was properly conducted.

21

Motion at p. 10.

Id. at p. 11.

Plaintiff fails to explain with

Plaintiff’s contentions regarding voir
Id.

The Court finds that jury

Plaintiff contends it was error for the Court to refuse to

22

include Plaintiff’s specific request for $20,000 in compensatory

23

damages in the jury instructions.

24

Plaintiff fails to explain how this refusal constituted error or

25

could serve as the basis for granting a new trial.

26

dissatisfaction with the Court’s definition of damages and injury

27

is irrelevant as the jury did not find Defendants liable.

28

Similarly, Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the Court’s failure to
7

Motion at p. 12.

However,

Plaintiff’s

Id.

1

instruct on the definitions of “oppression” and “intimidation”

2

are unpersuasive as the terms were irrelevant to the questions

3

presented to the jury.

4

Id.

As Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal basis for the

5

contention, the Court finds it has not committed “prejudicial

6

error” in failing to shift the costs associated with Plaintiff’s

7

production of witnesses to the Defendants.

8

Plaintiff next contends it was error for the Court to dismiss the

9

claims against previously named defendants Runnels, Meier, Barns,

Motion at p. 13.

10

and Miranda because they were knowledgeable witnesses that could

11

have provided relevant testimony.

12

dismissing these individuals as defendants did not preclude their

13

being called as witnesses; the Court finds no error.

14

Id.

The Court’s order

Plaintiff states the Court “should also reconsider allowing

15

the state claims to be presented in a new trial.”

16

14.

17

of a new trial.

18

Motion at p.

The Court finds this request fails to support the granting

Finally, Plaintiff contends the Court erred by failing to

19

provide him counsel at trial.

Motion at p. 14.

Plaintiff argues

20

he was on medications during the trial that affected his mental

21

functioning and that it should have been clear to the Court.

22

Plaintiff made no mention of this at trial, and the Court finds

23

no basis for granting a new trial on this newly alleged and

24

factually unsupported ground.

25

To the extent the “Summary of Arguments” is intended to

26

constitute additional grounds for the granting of a new trial or

27

judgment as a matter of law, the Court finds no support in the

28

record of any prejudicial error.

Motion at pp. 15-19.
8

1
2
3
4
5
6

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2015

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9