Hoskins v. Bowles et al

Filing 189

ORDER DENYING 166 Motion to Set Aside Verdict/Motion for New Trial (Doc. 166 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/28/2019. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ROBERT HOSKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DUSTIN BOWLES, MAJOR ADAMS, G.
JAMES, SCOTT A. HILL, and MARK L.
HARTMAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-280-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Background
Plaintiff Robert Hoskins filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that while
he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center in June 2014, Defendants Adams and
James beat him while he was handcuffed. He further claimed that when he complained about the
beating by filing an emergency grievance, Defendants Bowles, Hill, and Hartman retaliated against
him by issuing a false disciplinary ticket which resulted in punitive segregation.
A jury trial was held on July 9 and July 11, 2018, and the jury returned a verdict in favor
of Defendants Adams and James Plaintiff’s excessive force claim and in favor of Defendants
Bowles, Hartman, and Hill on the retaliation claim. Judgment was entered on July 11, 2018.
This matter is now before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the
Verdict and for a New Trial (Doc. 166) to which Defendants responded (Doc. 170). For the
following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

Page 1 of 3

Legal Standard
Under Rule 59(a), 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). 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).
Discussion
Plaintiff argues he was denied a fair trial because Defendants used three “non-docketed”
exhibits that should not have been admitted into evidence.

Plaintiff does not identify the

documents by exhibit number. However, it appears that he is referring to Defendants’ Exhibit 9
and Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 (it is unclear what third exhibit Plaintiff is referring to). Plaintiff’s
argument has no merit.
Defendants did not move to admit any exhibits during the trial – all exhibits admitted and
published to the jury were submitted by Plaintiff himself. Defendants’ Exhibit 9 was Plaintiff’s
deposition transcript that was used during trial solely to impeach Plaintiff’s testimony about how
he submitted a grievance. Defendants’ Exhibit 9 was not published to the jury nor was it admitted
into evidence.
Plaintiff has presented no viable argument why he should be granted a new trial or why the
judgment should be amended or altered under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set
Aside the Verdict and for a New Trial is DENIED (Doc. 166).

Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 28, 2019

STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3