Harris v. Rambosk et al

Filing 268

ORDER denying 263 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/24/2022. (AFC)

Case 2:18-cv-00017-JES-MRM Document 268 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 7523

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ROBERT DALE HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:18-cv-17-JES-MRM

KASEY P. WINGO,
individually, MICHAEL D.
CHAPMAN, individually,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff Robert Dale
Harris’ (plaintiff or Harris) Motion for a New Trial, Altering or
Amending the Judgement (Doc. #263) filed on January 4, 2022.
Defendants Kasey P. Wingo and Michael D. Chapman (collectively,
defendant deputies) filed a Response (Doc. #266) on January 18,
2022.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

The Court held a jury trial in this matter from December 7
through December 10, 2021.

The jury returned a verdict in favor

of defendant deputies on all claims (Doc. #260), and judgment was
entered (Doc. #262).

Plaintiff now requests, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A) and (e), an altered or amended judgment in his
favor and a new trial to decide only the amount of his damages.
(Doc. #263.)

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to this relief

because the Court and defense counsel failed to adhere to the

Case 2:18-cv-00017-JES-MRM Document 268 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 7524

Eleventh Circuit’s previous mandate during the trial, plaintiff’s
stop and detention were unlawful, and the jury’s verdicts to the
contrary are wrong.

(Id.)

A Rule 59 motion for a new jury trial may be granted “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).

Such reasons include a verdict which is against the weight of the
evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice, erroneous
jury instructions, or misconduct of trial counsel.

Lipphardt v.

Durango Steakhouse of Brandon, Inc., 267 F.3d 1183, 1186 (11th
Cir. 2001); Tierney v. Black Bros. Co., 852 F. Supp. 994, 1003
(M.D. Fla. 1994) (collecting cases).

Resolution of a motion for

a new trial is committed to the discretion of the trial court.
McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 817 F.3d 1241, 1255
(11th Cir. 2016).

“Because it is critical that a judge does not

merely substitute his judgment for that of the jury, new trials
should not be granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at a minimum,
the verdict is against the great—not merely the greater—weight of
the evidence.” Id.
Under Rule 59(e), a district court may “alter or amend a
judgment.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Rule 59(e) gives a district

court the chance “to rectify its own mistakes in the period
immediately following its decision.” Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct.
1698, 1703 (2020) (quotation omitted); see also Jenkins v. Anton,

2

Case 2:18-cv-00017-JES-MRM Document 268 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 7525

922 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2019) (“a district court may alter
or amend a judgment that is based on manifest errors of law or
fact”).

The decision to reconsider a judgment is committed to the

sound discretion of the district court.
1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006).

Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d

A Rule 59(e) motion should not be

used to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence
that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757,
763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff’s motion mostly addresses his previous argument
that the jury trial should have been limited to a determination of
the amount of damages because the Court of Appeals had already
decided defendants’ liability.

(Doc. #235.)

The current motion

asserts that the Court violated the Eleventh Circuit’s mandate by
allowing the jury to determine facts other than the amount of
damages.

Plaintiff’s position is not well-founded.

It is certainly true that a district court must follow the
directions of an appellate court’s decision and mandate.
The law of the case doctrine and the mandate
rule ban courts from revisiting matters
decided expressly or by necessary implication
in an earlier appeal of the same case. But
neither principle applies when the issue in
question was outside the scope of the prior
appeal.
AIG Baker Sterling Heights, LLC v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 579
F.3d 1268, 1270–71 (11th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up).

3

Case 2:18-cv-00017-JES-MRM Document 268 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 7526

The “mandate rule” is simply a “specific
application
of
the
‘law
of
the
case’
doctrine.” Piambino, 757 F.2d at 1120 (citing
Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Fed.
Commc'ns Comm'n, 463 F.2d 268, 279 (D.C. Cir.
1971), cert denied, 406 U.S. 950, 92 S. Ct.
2402 (1972)). It “stands for the proposition
that an appellate decision on an issue must be
followed in all subsequent trial court
proceedings unless the presentation of new
evidence or an intervening change in the
controlling law dictates a different result,
or the appellate decision is clearly erroneous
and, if implemented, would work a manifest
injustice.” Id. (citing Westbrook v. Zant, 743
F.2d 764, 768–69 (11th Cir. 1984); Baumer v.
United States, 685 F.2d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir.
1982)).
Ne. Engineers Fed. Credit Union v. Home Depot, Inc., No. 20-10667,
2022 WL 40210, at *3 n.6 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022).
In this case, the district court denied defendants’ motion
for summary judgment asserting entitlement to qualified immunity.
Defendants

appealed

that

decision,

and

the

Eleventh

Circuit

affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified
immunity.
2021).

Harris v. Wingo, 845 Fed. App’x. 892, 896 (11th Cir.

But denial of summary judgment on a claim of qualified

immunity does not establish liability for the underlying conduct.
“[A] claim of immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of
the

plaintiff’s

claim

that

his

rights

have

been

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 527–28 (1985).

violated.”
Denial of

qualified immunity simply allows the case to proceed to trial,

4

Case 2:18-cv-00017-JES-MRM Document 268 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 7527

where the facts may well be different 1 and the issue of qualified
immunity issue may be revisited.

Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d

1480, 1488 (11th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff is simply seeking to relitigate matters which the
Court has already decided and fare no better now.

Defendants were

entitled to have a jury decide the facts of the case.

The verdict

in this case was not against the great weight of the evidence.
The Court has considered all arguments presented in plaintiff’s
motion and finds that none have merit or warrant a new trial.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial, Altering or Amending the
Judgement (Doc. #263) is DENIED.

1

As the Eleventh Circuit explained in its decision:
On review of a motion for summary judgment, we
view the facts in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188,
1190 (11th Cir. 2002). In recounting the
facts, we note where facts are disputed and at
this stage resolve the disputes in Harris's
favor. We emphasize, however, “that the facts,
as accepted at the summary judgment stage of
the proceedings, may not be the actual facts
of the case.” Priester v. City of Riviera
Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 925 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Because we
write for the parties, who are familiar with
the facts, we include only what is necessary
to explain our decision.

Harris, 845 Fed. App’x. at 893.

5

Case 2:18-cv-00017-JES-MRM Document 268 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 7528

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of February, 2022.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

6

24th

day