Hymes v. Bliss et al

Filing 271

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 251 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2019)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
SCANVINSKI JEROME HYMES,

8

Plaintiff,

9
v.

10

MILTON BLISS, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-04288-JSC

Defendants.

12

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’
AMENDED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
AS A MATTER OF LAW
Re: Dkt. No. 251

Plaintiff Scanvinski Jerome Hymes sued five current or former San Francisco Deputy

13
14

Sheriffs (collectively, “Defendants”) for the use of excessive force on July 24, 2014 while he was

15

incarcerated at the San Francisco County jail.1 (Dkt. No. 43.)2 The case was tried before a jury

16

and on December 12, 2018, the jury returned a partial verdict for the defense, finding that two of

17

the defendants did not use excessive force. (Dkt. No. 223.) The jury could not reach a verdict as

18

to the remaining defendants and claims. (Id.) Now pending before the Court is Defendants’

19

renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

20

50(b). (Dkt. No. 251.) After careful consideration of the parties’ briefing and the trial record, the

21

Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES

22

Defendants’ motion.
DISCUSSION

23

After the close of Plaintiff’s case on December 7, 2018, Defendants moved for judgment as

24
25

a matter of law, pursuant to Rule 50(a). (Dkt. No. 229.) The Court denied Defendants’ motion.

26
27
28

1

All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 1 & 21.)
2
Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

1

(Id. at 26.) After trial, Defendants filed the instant motion under Rule 50(b) on the same

2

substantive grounds asserted in the Rule 50(a) motion; specifically: (1) Plaintiff’s excessive force

3

and failure to intervene claims fail; (2) Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim against Defendant

4

Bliss fails; (3) an adverse inference based on Defendant Jones’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment

5

is not warranted; (4) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and (5) Plaintiff’s punitive

6

damages claim fails. (See Dkt. Nos. 229 & 251.)

7

In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, courts “must draw all reasonable

8

inferences in favor of the nonmoving party,” and cannot “make credibility determinations or weigh

9

the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (emphasis

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

added). The Reeves Court described the Rule 50 standard of review thusly:
[A]lthough the court should review the record as a whole, it must
disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is
not required to believe. That is, the court should give credence to
the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that evidence
supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and
unimpeached, at least to the extent that the evidence comes from
disinterested witnesses.

15

Id. at 150-51 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Defendants’ arguments in support

16

of their Rule 50(b) motion essentially turn the applicable standard of review on its head. In other

17

words, Defendants’ arguments on each ground are premised on inferences drawn in Defendants’

18

favor, not Plaintiff’s. As such, Defendants’ motion fails.

19

CONCLUSION

20

The Court DENIES Defendants’ Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law.

21

Defendants’ arguments in support of their motion require the Court to draw inferences in

22

Defendants’ favor, which is contrary to the applicable standard of review. The March 28, 2019

23

hearing is vacated as to oral argument on this motion; however, the parties shall appear on that

24

date to discuss the issue of Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s exhaustion of administrative

25

remedies. The Court had deferred that issue until after the jury trial in light of Defendants raising

26

the defense late in the case, but the Court neglected to address the topic at the post-trial case

27

management conference. Accordingly, the parties shall meet and confer on or before March 26,

28

2019 and jointly submit a written statement detailing their proposal as to how to proceed on the
2

1
2
3

exhaustion issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 21, 2019

4
5
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3