Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries et al

Filing 124

ORDER denying 116 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/23/17. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LINZIE J. LEDBETTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES, a
Project of Interfaith Counsel, BOBBY
ANDERSON and MICHAEL HEATH,

No. 13-cv-308-DRH-SCW

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for a new trial
(Doc. 116). Ledbetter, acting pro se, filed this timely motion for a new trial on
May 11, 2017. Thereafter, defendants filed a response opposing the motion
(Doc. 118), to which plaintiff replied (Doc. 122).
Ledbetter filed his lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Civil Rights
Act of 1991 alleging retaliation arising from his termination from Good
Samaritan Ministries on October 20, 2010. His claims were tried to a jury on
April 12, 2017, which rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants Michael
Heath, Bobby Anderson, and Good Samaritan Ministries. Judgment was
entered on April 14, 2017 (Doc. 107).

Page 1 of 3

In the pending motion, Ledbetter alleges that “plaintiff presented enough

prima facie evidence at trial that the jury should have enter[ed] a verdict in
favor of the plaintiff” (Doc. 116). In the memorandum filed in support of his
motion, Ledbetter went on to list numerous issues dating back to discovery
through issues he believes arose at trial.

However, upon review of the record,

the Court disagrees.
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(a)(1)(A) allows the Court to grant a
new jury trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted
in an action at law in federal court.” This includes where the verdict is against
the manifest weight of the evidence or the trial was unfair to the moving party.

Venson v. Altamirano, 749 F.3d 641, 657 (7th Cir. 2014); Kapelanski v.
Johnson, 390 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 2004). A verdict is against the manifest
weight of the evidence only if, viewing the evidence in favor of the non-moving
party, no rational jury could have rendered the verdict. EEOC v. AutoZone,

Inc., 809 F.3d 916, 919 (7th Cir. 2016). “A new trial is warranted only if 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.” Plyler v. Whirlpool Corp., 751 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2014)
(internal quotations omitted).
In this case, based on a thorough review of the Court’s record and the
evidence presented at trial, the Court agrees with defendant and finds that
plaintiff’s claims have no merit. There is no indication that the jury’s verdict
Page 2 of 3

was against the manifest weight of the evidence presented at trial. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion for a new trial (Doc. 116) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 23rd day of May, 2017.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R. Herndon
Date: 2017.05.23
14:14:56 -05'00'
United States District Court Judge

Page 3 of 3