Estate of James Strong Jr., The et al v. City of Northglenn, Colorado, The et al

Filing 205

ORDER Denying 197 Plaintiff Motion for New Trial. ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 4/7/2020.(angar, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 17-cv-1276-WJM-SKC
ESTATE OF JAMES STRONG, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON SCHLENKER,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

This case arises out of the death of James Strong, Jr., in his home during the
execution of a no-knock arrest warrant on May 28, 2015. Plaintiff Estate of James
Strong, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) brought a civil rights action against Defendant Jason Schlenker
(“Defendant”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for use of excessive force in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. The case proceeded to a jury trial commencing on August 12,
2019. After the close of Plaintiff’s case, Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of
law under Rule 50(a), which the Court took under advisement. (ECF No. 182.) After
the close of Defendant’s case, Defendant renewed his motion for judgment as a matter
of law under Rule 50(a). (ECF No. 184.) Plaintiff made no motion under Rule 50 at any
point during the trial. The Court denied Defendant’s Rule 50 motion, and allowed the
case to be submitted to the jury. (Id.) The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of
Defendant on August 20, 2020. (ECF No. 196.)
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (“Motion”). (ECF

No. 197.) For the reasons explained below, the Motion is denied. 1
I. ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 allows a court to grant a new trial after a jury
trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at
law in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). Where, as here, the party’s motion for
a new trial “asserts that the jury verdict is not supported by the evidence, the verdict
must stand unless it is clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the
evidence.” M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 565 F.3d 753, 762 (10th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted).2 Such a motion raises a question of fact, and the
court must review the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Patton
v. TIC United Corp., 77 F.3d 1235, 1242 (10th Cir. 1996). Motions f or a new trial are
“generally committed to a Court’s discretion, . . . disfavored[,] and should be granted
with caution.” Guidance Endodontics, LLC v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1170,
1184 (D.N.M. 2010).
Plaintiff argues that “the verdict is not based on substantial evidence and
therefore is not supported by the weight of the evidence.” (ECF No. 187 at 3.) In
support, it recounts its version of the evidence. In response, Defendant explains that
Plaintiff relies on evidence rebutted or not introduced at trial, and that the v erdict is

1

On the same day it filed the Motion, Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Filing of Affidavit
(ECF No. 193) and the Affidavit of Lanhisha Richmond (ECF No. 198-1). Plaintiff does not,
however, make any attempt to tie the substance of the affidavit to the Motion. Accordingly, the
Court will not consider the alleged facts in the affidavit.
2

Without explanation, Plaintiff cites to law mostly outside the Tenth Circuit in support of
the standard of review. (ECF No. 197 at 2–3.) The Court will apply the law of this circuit, by
which it is bound.
2

supported by the evidence. (ECF No. 201 at 3–9.)
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Defendant, the Court finds that
the verdict is supported by the evidence, and is not “clearly, decidedly, or
overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence.” M.D. Mark, 565 F.3d at 762. The
jury was asked to determine whether Defendant unreasonably used deadly force
against Strong during the execution of the warrant. (ECF No. 189 at 18.) In doing so, it
was instructed to consider whether deadly force was necessary to prevent Strong’s
escape, whether Defendant had probable cause to believe that Strong posed a
significant threat of serious physical injury to others, or whether it would have been
feasible for Defendant to give Strong a warning. (Id. at 19–20.)
At trial, the parties introduced conflicting evidence about whether Strong
continued to pose a threat after he fell to the floor. Plaintiff claims that “the evidence
clearly established” that “Defendant stepped into the master bedroom and continued to
shoot at Mr. Strong,” despite the fact that Strong had already been shot and was no
longer a threat. (ECF No. 197 at 4.) Lanhisha Richmond testified that she saw
Defendant enter the room after Strong fell to the ground and fire several shots directly
into Strong’s body after he no longer posed a threat.
Defendant presented contrary evidence: Defendant and Officer Wilson testified
that they saw Strong on the floor, pointing his weapon, and firing at Officer Wilson.
(ECF No. 201 at 7.) Defendant also testified that he stopped firing when he saw Strong
curl into a fetal position. (ECF No. 203 at 12.) Defendant’s expert testified, and
Plaintiff’s expert conceded, that the injury to Officer Wilson’s leg was consistent with
Strong firing from the ground. (ECF No. 201 at 7.) A reasonable jury could have
3

credited the testimony of Officer Wilson, both experts, and Defendant, and concluded
that Strong still posed a threat when Defendant stepped into the bedroom and fired at
Strong. Such a conclusion is not “clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the
weight of the evidence.” M.D. Mark, 565 F.3d at 762.
The parties also presented conflicting evidence on whether there was a sufficient
break in the shooting such that Defendant could have perceived that Strong was no
longer a threat. Ms. Richmond testified that there was a clear break in the shooting
(ECF No. 201 at 8), whereas Defendant testified that there was only a continuous
course of fire (id.). Six other officers testified that they did not hear a several-second
break in the gunfire. (Id.) The jury could have reasonably credited the multiple
accounts of the officers and concluded that there was no break in the action during
which Defendant could perceive that Strong no longer posed a threat. Again, such a
conclusion is not “clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the
evidence.” M.D. Mark, 565 F.3d at 762.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Defendant, the Court finds that
the jury verdict that Defendant did not unreasonably use excessive, deadly force
against Strong is supported by the evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for
New Trial (ECF No. 197) be DENIED.

4

Dated this 7th day of April, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

5