Brickhouse et al v. Redstone et al
Filing
194
ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (Doc. 182 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/2/2016. (hjg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ALEXANDER BRICKHOUSE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 12-cv-593-SMY-PMF
JOHN REDSTONE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (Doc. 182), to which Defendant has
responded (Doc. 185). Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Reply (Doc. 192) and Defendant filed a
Supplemental Response (Doc. 193). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial
is DENIED.
Plaintiff filed a §1983 suit against Defendant claiming that Defendant used excessive
force against him during an arrest. Following a five-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in
favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff (Doc. 171). In his Motion for New Trial, Plaintiff
argues that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because at trial, Plaintiff
established that Defendant used unreasonable force against him and was harmed as a result.
In ruling on a motion for new trial, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 requires "a district
court to determine 'whether the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence…or for
other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving." Kapelanski v. Johnson, 390 F.3d 525,
530 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting EEOC v. Century Broadcasting Corp., 957 F.2d 1146, 1460 (7th
Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted).
Traditionally, new trials have not been permitted as a
means for a dissatisfied litigant to take a second bite of the apple. Sokol Crystal Products, Inc. v.
DSC Communications Corp., 15 F.3d 1427, 1432 (7th Cir. 1994). A verdict determined to be
1
against the manifest weight of the evidence should only warrant a new trial "when the record
shows that the jury's verdict resulted in a miscarriage of justice or where the verdict, on the
record, cries out to be overturned or shocks our conscience." Latino v. Kaizer, 58 F.3d 310, 315
(7th Cir. 1995). Further, because a district court's decision to grant or deny a new trial is
accorded great deference, a reviewing court should reverse the decision only subject to a finding
of "exceptional circumstances showing a clear abuse of discretion." General Foam Fabricators,
Inc. v. Tenneco Chems., Inc., 695 F.2d 281, 288.
The district judge who "heard the same testimony as the jury" and "observed the
witnesses' demeanor just as the jury did" can assess the evidence, including the witnesses'
credibility. Thomas v. Statler, 20 F.3d 298, 304 (7th Cir. 1994). Thus, in ruling on a motion for
new trial, the district court may consider the credibility of the witnesses, the weight of the
evidence, and anything else justice requires. Mejia v. Cook County, Ill., 650 F.3d 631, 633 (7th
Cir. 2011).
To prevail on an excessive use of force claim pursuant to §1983, Plaintiff was required to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Defendant used unreasonable force against
Plaintiff, (2) Plaintiff was harmed as a result of Defendant's use of force and (3) Defendant acted
under color of law. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). It was within the
province of the jury to determine the reasonableness of Defendant's use of force and the
determination is an objective one: whether the officer's actions are objectively reasonable in light
of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to intent or motive. Id. at 397.
Here, Plaintiff first contends that the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the
evidence because Defendant's testimony was contradictory to other testimony presented at trial
(Doc. 192). For instance, Plaintiff testified that Defendant kicked, punched, shoved and dragged
2
him by his handcuffs at the police station. (Doc. 189, p. 73-86). Defendant testified, however,
that Plaintiff was jerking, tugging, kicking the lockers, jumping and acting erratically as
Defendant tried to walk him down the hall (Doc. 190, p. 56). In addition, Plaintiff testified that
Defendant slammed him against a metal door at the police station (Doc. 189, p. 73).
Officer Carter Burford testified that Plaintiff lunged at the door on his own accord, but he
did not see whether Plaintiff fell to the ground (Doc. 191, p. 11). Defendant testified that he did
not see how Plaintiff ended up on the ground at the metal door because he was requesting that
the door be opened remotely.
Burford's testimony does not contradict that of Defendant's. In
fact, it fills in a gap. While Defendant was looking away, Burford saw the actions of Plaintiff
jumping and slamming himself into the metal door. The jury is entitled to weigh the evidence
presented to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. Kapelanski v. Johnson, 390 F.3d 525, 531.
Therefore, any conflicts between the witnesses' testimony were apparently resolved by the jury
in Defendant's favor. See Kapelanski, 390 F.3d at 530-31.
Plaintiff also contends that the medical evidence supports his claim that Defendant used
excessive force against him. The jury had medical records from both before and after the
incident in question available for its consideration.1 In each set of medical records, the diagnosis
was "contusions to face and chest wall." In the second set of medical records, there was also a
diagnosis of an abrasion to the right forearm (Doc. 189, p. 108).
Plaintiff testified that Defendant used the cuffs to pull Plaintiff down a 35-foot hallway
(Doc. 189, p. 138).
Plaintiff also testified that the cuffs made his wrists (plural) bleed every
time he moved (Doc. 189, p. 138). Defendant testified that Plaintiff was jerking, jumping, and
pulling while in his handcuffs (Doc. 190, p. 55-56). Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion in his
1
Prior to the incident at the police station, Plaintiff was in an automobile accident. He was placed in an ambulance
and taken to Gateway Hospital (Doc. 189, p. 122).
3
Supplemental Reply brief that "[t]he injuries to Plaintiff's wrist…could have only resulted from
the deliberate misuse of the handcuffs…" (Doc. 192, p. 4), an abrasion to the wrist supports
Defendant's testimony that Plaintiff's erratic behavior could have caused the abrasion. Indeed,
Plaintiff had only one abrasion on one of his wrists, which contradicts Plaintiff's testimony that
the cuffs and the force with which Defendant used the cuffs, caused both of his wrists to bleed.
The jury saw demonstrations by both Plaintiff and Defendant about how the handcuffs were
used. That the jury believed Defendant's version of the handcuff use does not render the verdict
so unreasonable that it would shock the conscience; it simply means that the jury chose not to
believe Plaintiff's testimony—a credibility determination the jury is allowed to make. See
Gower v. Vercler, 377 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2004).
At trial, Plaintiff also claimed that Defendant kicked him in the ribs and legs (Doc. 189,
p. 139-40). Defendant testified that he did not kick Plaintiff and that he was wearing steel-toed
boots on the day of the incident (Doc. 190, p. 64). The jury was shown medical documentation
from after the incident that showed no fractures or bruising to Plaintiff's ribs or legs (Doc. 189, p.
54). Based on that evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Defendant did not kick
Plaintiff because if he had, Plaintiff would have suffered significant injury to his ribs and legs.
The Court finds that the jury reasonably weighed the evidence and made credibility
determinations based on that evidence. There were several disputed facts and the jury credited
Defendant's version of events in light of the testimony and evidence presented.
Given the
totality of the circumstances, the jury concluded that any force Defendant may have used was
reasonable. The record does not reveal a miscarriage of justice and the manifest weight of the
evidence supports the verdict.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 2, 2016
/s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?