Hickson v. Hebert et al
ORDER granting 196 Motion Re-Hearing of Plaintiff's Written Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. The Courts previous Order denying the Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is VACATED and WITHDRAWN. Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Rec. Doc. 194) and 198 Motion for New Trial are DENIED. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 11/28/2017. (ELW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HENRY HICKSON (#369635)
CAPTAIN GABRIEL HERBERT, ET AL.
Before the Court are the Plaintiff’s Motion for Re-Hearing (Rec. Doc. 196), Motion
for Judgment as Matter of Law (Rec. Doc. 194), and Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 198).
Considering the Plaintiff’s Motion for Re-Hearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion (Rec. Doc. 196) is GRANTED,
and the Court’s previous Order denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law is VACATED and WITHDRAWN. The Court will now addresses the merits of the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Rec. Doc. 194) and Motion for New
Trial (R. Doc. 198).
A Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law “in an action tried by a jury, is
a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict.” Flowers
v. Southern Regional Physician Services, Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 235 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Ford v. Cimarron Ins. Co., 230 F.3d 828, 830 (5th Cir. 2000)). Such a motion may be
granted only if the trial court finds that “there is no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable
jury to have found for that party with respect to that issue.” Id. (quoting Ford, 230 F.3d at
830 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Foreman v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 117 F.3d
800, 804 (5th Cir. 1997)). In conducting its analysis of a Rule 50(b) motion, the court
“consider[s] all of the evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving all
credibility determinations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id. (quoting
Brown v. Bryan County, OK, 219 F.3d 450, 456 (5th Cir. 2000)). Considering that all
reasonable inferences and credibility determinations must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party, “judgment as a matter of law should not be granted unless the facts and
inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the movant's favor that reasonable
jurors could not reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. (quoting Omnitech Int'l, Inc. v. Clorox
Co., 11 F.3d 1316, 1322 (5th Cir. 1994)). The Fifth Circuit instructs that “[c]ourts should
be wary of upsetting jury verdicts, and should do so only when there is not a legallysufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict.” In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Products
Liability Litigation, 2014 WL 4364832, *3 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 2014) (citing Roman v.
Western Manufacturing, 691 F.3d 686, 692 (5th Cir. 2012)).
The Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because
he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Hebert utilized excessive
force against the Plaintiff. After being presented with both the facts and relevant legal
standards, the jury plainly concluded otherwise. The Court thoroughly instructed the jury
on the elements of excessive force and the deference that must be given to prison officials
in executing policies and procedures to preserve internal order and discipline and
maintain security. By returning a verdict in favor of the Defendant, the jury conveyed its
finding that the Plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient proof that excessive force was used
against him. Such a determination is reasonable and supported by the evidence. The
Court cannot say, based on the evidence, that the facts and inferences point so strongly
and overwhelmingly in the Plaintiff’s favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a
Turning to the Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial, Rule 59(a) provides that a new trial
may be granted “on all or some of the issues ... after a jury trial, for any reason for which
a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(a)(1). Although Rule 59(a) does not list specific grounds for a new trial, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that a new trial may be granted if “the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was
unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course.” Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co.,
773 F.2d 610, 613 (5th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). However, it is within the “sound
discretion of the trial court” to determine whether to grant or deny a motion for new trial.
Pryor v. Trane Co., 138 F.3d 1024, 2016 (5th Cir. 1998).
As in many cases of this kind, the verdict in this case ultimately hinged on credibility
determinations. More specifically, in making its decision, the jury necessarily had to
choose which version of the events it believed—the Plaintiff’s or the Defendant’s. The
jury made its credibility assessments, weighed this evidence, and obviously drew
inferences from this evidence favorable to Defendant Hebert. Considering the entire
record without rehashing the same, there is no basis to conclude that the verdict in favor
of the Defendant was against the great weight of the evidence.1 Accordingly,
The Court also notes that the plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial was not timely filed. A motion for new trial
must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). Judgment in this matter
was entered on September 30, 2017 (see Rec. Doc. 197), and the plaintiff’s Motion (R. Doc. 198) was not
filed until November 2, 2017.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law (Rec. Doc. 194) and Motion for New Trial (R. Doc. 198) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on November 28, 2017.
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
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?