PARKER v. HUMPHRIES

Filing 178

ORDER re Plaintiff's 172 Motion for New Trial is DENIED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 10/30/2012. (jws)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
JOHN EDWARD PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:09-cv-29-GRJ

MIKE SINGLETARY,
Defendant.
________________________________\
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Doc. 172, Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial. Defendant
has filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 173.) On September 11, 2012, following a
jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant. (Doc. 166.) The case
involved an allegation of excessive force by Defendant, a correctional officer, against
Plaintiff, a state prisoner.
Plaintiff, who has proceeded pro se throughout this case, argues that a new trial
is warranted because: (1) he was limited to 20 minutes of closing argument, which
resulted in a judgment founded on misinformation; (2) “The ‘jury’ was ‘instructed’ in part
on ‘misinformation.’”; (3) he was prevented from providing jury instruction on excessive
force; and (4) extrinsic matters were involved in the trial. Defendant responds that the
motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to object to any of the issues raised in
the motion for new trial and that nonetheless, there was no error or prejudice as to the
length of closing argument, jury instructions, or allegedly extrinsic matters discussed at
trial. (Doc. 173.)
Plaintiff did not object to the 20-minute time frame for closing arguments, jury
instructions, or any “extrinsic evidence” during the trial. Absent plain error constituting a

miscarriage of justice, error cannot be claimed unless a timely objection was made.
See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134 (2009); United States v. Gannaway,
2012 WL 1859528 (11th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any plain error
occurred during the trial. Notably, not only was the 20-minute time frame within the trial
court’s discretion and appropriate considering the limited amount of evidence
presented, Plaintiff did not use the entire 20 minutes to deliver his closing argument.
With regard to the jury instructions, the jury instructions were taken with limited
exceptions from the Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions and Plaintiff has not
shown any prejudice resulting therefrom.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff’s claims regarding “extrinsic evidence” refer to
evidence related to his previous sexual allegations against Defendant, Defendant
attempted to exclude this evidence prior to trial but his motion in limine was denied.
Plaintiff was advised that he could reassert his motion at trial but did not do so. (Docs.
127, 141.) In any event the introduction of this evidence was relevant to the
Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s allegations of excessive force lacked credibility.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 172) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Gainesville, Florida, on October 30, 2012.

s/ Gary R. Jones s/GaryR.Jone
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

2