Hunt v. Reyes et al

Filing 188

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/20/2015 DENYING 181 Motion for New Trial. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL A. HUNT,

12

No. 2:08-cv-0181 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. REYES, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Following a jury trial resulting in a verdict for defendants, this pro se prisoner action was
closed on January 7, 2015. Plaintiff has filed a motion for new trial. (ECF No. 181.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1) provides that: “The court may, on motion, grant

20

a new trial on all or some of the issues – and to any party – as follows: (A) after a jury trial, for

21

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

22

court[.]” Rule 59 does not specify the grounds on which a motion for a new trial may be granted.

23

Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003). Rather, the court is

24

“bound by those grounds that have been historically recognized.” Id. “Historically recognized

25

grounds include, but are not limited to, claims ‘that the verdict is against the weight of the

26

evidence, that the damages are excessive, or that, for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the

27

party moving.’” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

28

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251 (1940)). “The grant of a new trial is
1

1

‘confided almost entirely to the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court.’” Murphy v.

2

City of Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon,

3

Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980)).

4

Here, plaintiff seeks a new trial on the following grounds: (1) the jury verdict was against

5

the clear weight of the evidence; (2) the jury instructions were misleading and inadequate; (3) the

6

court allowed evidence and theories eliminated by summary judgment and its pretrial order; and

7

(4) the trial court erred in evidentiary rulings. (ECF No. 181 at 2.) Having reviewed the motion,

8

the Court concludes that plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 59(a)(1). As this action is

9

closed, no order will issue in response to future filings.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for new trial (ECF No.

11

181) is denied.

12

Dated: April 20, 2015

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2