Dees v. Smith et al
Filing
144
ORDER DENYING Motion for New Trial filed by Rodney Dees 142 . Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/4/2016. (mah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RODNEY DEES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANGELA SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-CV-625 –SMY-PMF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff, Rodney Dees, currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, brought
this action for deprivations of his Eighth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleged that while he was incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center, Defendants James
Sisk, Angela Smith, and Patrick Ferguson utilized excessive force on him by having his
handcuffs applied too tightly, cutting off circulation to his hands and causing severe pain. This
matter proceeded to a two-day jury trial beginning on December 7, 2015. At trial, Plaintiff was
represented by appointed counsel, Rebecca Grosser. On December 8, 2015, the jury returned a
verdict for Defendants (Doc. 139). Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial
(Doc. 142). Defendants have filed a Response in opposition to the Motion (Doc. 143). For the
foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, the court has discretion to grant a new trial
where the jury's verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence or when a new trial is
necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Romero v. Cincinnati, Inc., 171 F.3d 1091, 1096
(7th Cir.1999). A party will not be granted a new trial where the jury verdict has reasonable
support in the record. Carter v. Chicago Police Officers, 165 F.3d 1071, 1079 (7th Cir.1998).
Page 1 of 3
To satisfy the “manifest weight of the evidence” standard, a party must show that no rational jury
could have entered judgment against him. King v. Harrington, 447 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir.2006).
Plaintiff’s Motion raises two grounds for a new trial. First, Plaintiff asserts that “the
stipulation made to the jury and jury instructions caused prejudice” and “the evidence Plaintiff
admitted to his counsel was not or should have been admitted into evidence.” Plaintiff does not
further develop this argument, but contends that Defendants utilized excessive force and that the
force was not applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
Essentially,
Plaintiff contends that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because in his
view, the jury got it wrong.
The Seventh Circuit has noted that jury verdicts deserve deference when the case
involves “simple issues but highly disputed facts.” Moore ex rel. Estate of Grady v. Tuelja, 546
F.3d 423, 427 (7th Cir. 2008). In this case, it was the jury’s duty to determine the credibility of
the evidence, to decide whether Defendants utilized excessive force and, if so, whether the force
was necessary.
Here, the jury chose to believe the Defendants and concluded that the
Defendants had not used excessive force. Plaintiff has not established that no rationale jury
could have entered judgment against him. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s first argument is rejected.
Next, Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel through his
court-appointed attorney because she failed to call members of the Tamms Correctional
Adjustment Committee. Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. It is well-established that there is no
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil case and a re-trial is not a proper
remedy for defective representation in a civil case. Stanciel v. Gramley, 267 F.3d 575, 581 (7th
Cir.2001); see also Bell v. Eastman Kodak Co., 214 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir.2000) (finding that
ineffective assistance of counsel is not proper grounds for collaterally attacking a civil
judgment). Thus, Plaintiff's second argument is also rejected.
Page 2 of 3
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 142) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 4, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle__________
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?