Pierce v. Ruiz et al

Filing 183

MOTION by Plaintiff Cedric N. Pierce for judgment as a matter of law Rule 50(a) (Martin, Craig)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Cedric N. Pierce,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 13-CV-6824
vs.
JUDGE EDMOND E. CHANG
J. Ruiz, Badge No. # 5143, Chicago Police
Officer, S. Whitehead, Badge No. # 12097,
Chicago Police Officer,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 50 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
Plaintiff Cedric Pierce, by his attorneys, respectfully requests that this Court grant
judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) in his favor on the
following grounds.
ARGUMENT
Under Rule 50(a), “if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the
court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for
the party on that issue,” the Court may resolve that issue against that party and may grant a motion
for judgment as a matter of law.
At the close of Defendants’ evidence, the jury lacks a legally sufficient evidentiary basis
to find in Defendants favor on either of Plaintiff’s claims of (1) excessive force and (2) failure to
provide medical attention. Specifically:


Excessive Force: The totality of the evidence, including Defendants’ testimony that
Plaintiff did not meaningfully resist arrest, the unrefuted evidence of Plaintiff’s laborintensive work as a residential contractor in the days just prior to the incident, and medical
records reflecting Plaintiff’s injury after leaving police custody (whether that injury was

2451327.1

temporary or permanent), shows that whatever force used by Defendants Ruiz and
Whitehead on September 19, 2011, was excessive and unreasonable and caused Mr. Pierce
harm.


Failure to Provide Medical Attention: Furthermore, the medical records and expert
testimony submitted by the close of Defendants’ case clearly demonstrate that during the
time of his arrest, and thus while he was in the custody of Officer’s Ruiz and Whitehead,
Plaintiff suffered from a serious and obvious medical need relating to his right shoulder
condition. That need went unmet, despite Plaintiff’s requests, and despite Defendants’
testimony that they could have taken Plaintiff to the hospital without any difficulty or
inconvenience. Upon leaving police custody, Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to Stroger
Hospital where he was diagnosed with a shoulder strain causing pain and swelling,
followed by a diagnosis of decreased range of motion just two days later.

Accordingly, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for any reasonable juror to find in favor of
Defendants on these claims.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and based on the evidence and testimony presented, Plaintiff
respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for judgment as a matter of law in his favor.

Date: October 28, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Craig C. Martin
Craig C. Martin
Paul B. Rietema
Maria C. Liu
Jenner & Block LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-3456
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312 527-0484
Attorneys for Plaintiff

2
2451327.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on October 28, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s Rule
50 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law was electronically filed using the CM/ECF system,
which will send notice of such filing to all counsel of record.

s/Craig C. Martin

3
2451327.1