Ghazzaoui v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland et al

Filing 148

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/5/2018. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 6/6/18)

FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN HIE UNln:D STATES IlISTRICT COr:Pj~P.ICT 11;'.RYL/l.HO
OF
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
1018 'UN - 5 P 2: 51

*
RAI\IEZ GHAZZAOUI,

*
Case No.: G.tH-lot-lotIO

Plaintiff,

*

v.
*
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY,
MARYLAND, ef lIl.,

*
*

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I'm se Plaintitf Ramez Ghazzaoui
against Defendants

Anne Arundel County. Maryland.

Dwayne Raitord and Corporal
Ghazzaoui

Doyle Ilolquist

and the officers in Ghazzaoui's

the Court to overturn
Dctcndants

the jury's

have tiled a Response

reasons. Ghazzaoui's

Anne Arundel County Police Officer

("Defendants")

home. Ghazzaoui

tollowing

an altercation

between

has filed three motions. all asking

verdict and grant him a new trial. See lOCI"Nos. 144. 145. 146.
in Opposition

he has not replied. No hearing is necessary.

I.

tailed to obtain a favorable jury verdict in his action

to Ghazzaoui's

motions. lOCI"No. 147. to which

Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the tiJllowing

motions arc denied.

BACKGROUND'
The altercation

herein occurred
Ghazzaoui's

between Ghazzaoui

and the officers underlying

shortly before midnight on April 26.2013.

residence

and observed

Ghazzaoui's

motions

when the officers were dispatched

an open garage containing

to

a vehicle with open doors. The

I The complete factual and procedural background has bcen set forth in the COll11's prior memorandum
the record produced at trial. See ECr- Nos. 10.57.132-136.

opinions

and

orticers then entered Ghazzaoui's residence. Ii.HmdGhazzaoui asleep in his bed. and asked to see
his driver's license to confirm that he was permitted to be in the residence. During this exchange.
the parties got into a physical altercation that ultimately led to Ghazzaoui's injury and arrest.
As a result of this interaction. Ghazzaoui was charged with obstructing and hindering a
police oflicer in the perfi.lrmanee of his lawfiJl duties. resisting arrest. failing to obey a
reasonable and lawful order of a law enloreement oflicer. and causing physical injury in the
second degree to a law enforcement oflicer engaged in his orticial duties. Subsequent to his
arrest. the District Court for Anne Arundel County ("District Court") acquitted Ghazzaoui on the
charge of failing to obey a reasonable and lawfiJl order and granted Ghazzaoui Probation Beti.lre
Judgment on the remaining charges. Ghazzaoui appealed the District Court's ruling to the Circuit
Court 1i.)J'
Anne Arundel County. and the remaining charges were ultimately disposed of in his
fin'or. either by jury verdict or dismissal.
Following resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion fi.lrSummary
Judgment. ECF Nos. 10 and 58. as well as review by the Fourth Circuit. ECF No. 74.2
Ghazzaoui's remaining claims were as follows: claims against Raiford fi.lrexcessive Ii.lrce. false
arrest. false imprisonment. assault. battery. and malicious prosecution and e1aims against
Ilolquist fi.lrassault and battery. The Court held a motions hearing on November 20.2017 and a
three day jury trial on November 28-30. 2017. During the motions hearing. the Court
adjudicated a number of pre-trial issues. Specifically. the Court ruled that the parties could not
present testimony related to Ghazzaoui's prior criminal proceedings in the District Court.
Although the District Court initially convicted Ghazzaoui on some of the charges brought against
him. the convictions were overturned. in part. based on a Iinding that Raifi.Jrdhad perjured

~ Judge

MOIZ

initially granted

sUlllmary

judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims. but the Fourth Circuit

reinstated a number of claims.

2

himself during those procecdings.

The Court determined

at thc District Court. along with Raiford's

purported

that a review of the procedural

PCljury, would likely confusc thc jury

value and ruled that these issues were thereft)re irrelevant:1

without having any probative
addition,

the Court ruled that testimony

disputes

history

In

with his former spouse was also irrelevant.~
At trial. Defendants'

to Ghazzaoui's

attorney.

Philip Culpepper.

cross examined

motions herein, asked two notable questions.!

let people get away with misconduct
don't like~" The Court sustaincd
bench, removed

on any prior civil actions relating to Ghazzaoui's

by suing them whenever

Ghazzaoui's

from the jury, Culpepper

immediate

Ghazzaoui

First. Culpepper

Culpepper

Ilowever,

objection.

During a conference

at the

argued that he did not intend to discuss Ghazzaoui's

the Court determined

that Ghazzaoui

had a

that such facts were irrelevant.

asked. "You testified that you were exonerated

charges, but the District Court actually

Culpepper

that you

and

ended that line of questioning.

Second, Culpcpper

requested

ask cd "You don't

someone docs something

prior civil actions against his tonner spouse but rather sought to establish
history of litigious behavior.

and, relevant

another conference

flllmd you guilty?" Ghazzaoui

at the bench, where he requested

opposed Ghazzaoui's

objection

of all criminal

immediately

objected

and

that the Court deelare a mistrial.

and argued that Ghazzaoui

had opened the door to

:> "Under Maryland law. a conviction
determines conclusively the existence of probable cause. regardless of whether
the judgment is later reversed in a subsequent proceeding." Asul1citm \', ('il.l' (?lGailhersh/l/'~. No. 95-1 159. 1996
WL 1842. at *2 (4th Cir. Jan. 3. 1996) (ciling Zah/o,,",k.r r. Perki,,",. 187 A.2d 314. 316 (Md. 1963)). Maryland
recognizes an exception. however. jf"the conviction was obtained by fraud. perjury or other corrupt means:'
Zahloflsky. 187 A.2d at 316 (internal quotation omitted). Because Defendants stated at the Prc-trial Conference that
it was not intending to use the guilty verdict in the District Court proceeding to establish the existence of probable
cause. the pe~iury finding wns no longer relevant.
.j The Court also ruled that Ghazzaoui could not I) provide evidence that. as a result or the raise arrest charge.
Ghazzaoui had experienced difficulty in searching for new employment or 2) suggest that Raiford had a prior history
of misconduct because the charges against Raiford that Ghazzaoui intended to introduce were ultimately dismissed.
While Ghazzaoui states that he complied with the Court's instruction and did not mention such issuesduring trial. he
does not appear to argue that these evidentiary rulings werc in crror or should be re-considered as a pan ofl~is
motions herein.
5 Neither party has requested a transcript orthe jury trial. so the Court relies on audio recordings for any direct
quotations reproduced herein.

3

this line of questioning

when he previously

District Court. However,
correct and, consistent

stated that he had been acquitted

the Court determined

that Ghazzaoui's

was irrelevant.

Alier sustaining

Ghazzaoui's

instructed

the jury as lollows: .. , am going to sustain the objection

disregard

the question

that was asked regarding
disregard

Prior to the start ofthc
to reconsider

was technically

with the earlier motions hearing, stated that further discussion

District Court proceedings

You are to completely

statement

of one cbarge by the

a supposed

objection,

the Court

of Mr. Ghazzaoui,

you are to

guilty finding by the District Court.

that'"
trial day on Novcmber

30, 2017, Ghazzaoui

his request lor a mistrial and requcsted

again asked the Court

that the Court permit him to explain to the

jury that the District Court never found him guilty of any charges: rather, he reccived
Belore Judgment

of the

Probation

and then appealed 'the linding to the Circuit Court, where he was ultimately

exonerated,

The Court denied Ghazzaoui's

to disregard

the statement.

"I instructed the jury

request and stated the lollowing:

1 think it was a suflieient

curative instruction,

and'

don't think going

further into those weeds makes things better, 1 think it would only make things messier and more
conlusing'"

At the close of trial. the jury deliberated

e1aims, See Eel' No, 139, Thereaticr,

and found Defendants

the COUl1 entered Judgment

not liable on all

in favor of Defendants,

See

Eel' No, 142,
II.

DISCUSSION
Though Ghazzaoui

same arguments,
defense counsel's
Ii'om entering
(Motion

verbatim,

has tiled three separate
Ghazzaoui

motions lor relic!: each motion sets limh the

argues that the jury's

verdict was wrong, tainted by

conduct during the trial. and that the Court improperly

cvidence

to rebut defense counsel's

lor Relief tor Judgment

purported

misconduct.

pursuant to Fed, R, Civ, 1', 60(b)(3)):

4

prohibited

Ghazzaoui

See ECr: Nos, 144

145 (Motion

lilr New

Trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)): 146 (Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to
l'ed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Ghazzaoui does not set forth the legal standards underlying any of his three
requested avenues of relief. but the Court finds that his arguments are most appropriately
construed as a Motion for a New Trial pursuant to Rule 59(a).
Rule 59(a) provides that a court may grant a new trial "for any reason which a new trial
has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court:' Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)( 1)(A). A
new trial should only be granted if the verdict "(I) is against the elear weight of the evidence. (2)
is based upon evidence which is ftllse. or (3) will result in a miscarriage of justice. even though
there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict:' IVa//ace ".
POll/OS.861 F. Supp. 2d 587. 599 (D. Md. 2012) (citing Knllssman \'. iV/wJ'/aml. 272 l'Jd 625.
639 (4th Cir. 200 I)): see a/so Kin~ \'. McMillan. 594 FJd 301, 3 f4 (4th Cir. 20 I0) (the decision
to grant a motion for a ncw trial lies within the discretion of the district court),
In contrast. Rule 59(e) provides that a court may alter or amend a final judgment to
correct a clear error of law and prevent manifest injustice. See Ga~/iano

1'.

Reliance Standard

Lile Ins. Co .. 547 F.3d 230. 241 n.8 (4th Cir. 20(8) (also noting that Rule 59(e) may be used to
accommodate an intcrvening change in law or account for new evidence not available at trial).
And Rule 60(b)(3) provides that a court may relicve a party Irom a linaljudgmcnt

filr fraud.

misrepresentation. or misconduct by an opposing party.
Here. Ghazzaoui essentially asks the Court to re-consider its cvidentiary rulings made
during trial. making Rule 59(e) an inappropriate procedural rule to utilize. See Pac. IllS. CO. \'.
Am. Nat'/ Fire IllS. Co.. 148 F.3d 396. 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting II Wright. et al.. Federa/
Practice am/Procedllre

~ 2810.1. at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995) ("ltJhc Rule 59(e) motion may not bc

used to relitigate old matters"». Similarly. "Rule 60(b) does not authorize a motion merely for

5

reconsideration ofa legal issue:' UniledSlates \'. Williallls, 674 F.2d 310, 312-13 (4th Cir.
1982). Furthermore, though Ghazzaoui alleges that Culpepper's actions were done "knowingly
and maliciously:'

ECF No. 145 ~ 10, the record shows that Culpepper's attempts to ask

questions relating to Ghazzaoui's prior civil suits or criminal charges was not done in an emm to
prejudice the jury or defy the Court's prior instructions: rather, the questions were asked in
response to statements made during Ghazzaoui's direct testimony." C,'l' Schllll: \'. BII/cha,24
F.3d 626, 630 (4th Cir. 1994) (Rule 60(b)(3) requires the moving party to prove misconduct by
clear and convincing evidence). Therelore, Rule 59(a) most appropriately eapture's Plaintilrs
request.
The Court understands plaintiffs

Motion as bringing two distinct arguments for why a

new trial should be granted. First. Plaintiff argues that the evidence at trial "clearly supports
every element of every count on the jury verdict sheet." See ECF No. 145 ~ 18. Ilowever.
Plaintiff is unable to show how the jury's reliance on, or failure to consider. any single piece of
evidcnce warrants a linding by the Court that the jury's verdict was against the clear wcight of
the evidence. Rather, Plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate his case by arguing why his
understanding of the facts supports a verdict in his favor.
For example, Ghazzaoui argues that the Court should throw out the jury's verdict on
Ghazzaoui's false arrest claim because the evidence presented at trial proves that Raili)rd did not
have probable cause to arrest Ghazzaoui for obstructing and hindering. See ECF No. 145 ~ 20.ii.
In support, PlaintilTstates that, contrary to the charges filed against him, he did not "obstruct and
hinder" the ofticers' investigation: he was simply "asking Iilr lIoiquist's name while Holquist
was allegedly communicating on his radio device:' !d. Ilowever, Defendants introduced
(, Ghazzaoui incorrectly states that after sustaining his objections. the Court "reprimanded the Defendants'
attorneys:' .~.(!(!ECF No. 1-t5 ~ 13. To the contrary. while the Court did not agree with defense counsels' arguments
in support or the questions. the COlll1 did not reprimand the attorneys in any way.

6

testimony to suggest that Ghazzaoui was combative with the ot1icers and impeded Holquist's
attempts to quickly confirm Ghazzaoui's identity and ensure he was permitted to be in the
residence. Therefore. the jury was presented with a factual dispute liJr them to resolve. Similar
lilctual disputes persisted throughout the trial-Ghazzaoui

presented testimony to suggest that he

was the victim of overzealous policing and Defendants presented testimony to suggest that they
responded reasonably to Ghazzaoui's uncooperative behavior. While these lilCtual disputes were
not resolved in Ghazzaoui's javor. nothing in the record suggests that the jury's findings of laets
were against the clear wcight of evidence and that a ncw trial is warranted.
Second. Ghazzaoui argues that Culpepper's attempts to introduce testimony of
Ghazzaoui's prior civil actions or District Court criminal proceedings prejudiced Ghazzaoui
because .'the jury acted on a hard-to-shake-bias against Ghazzaoui despite being instructed not to
do so'" ECF No. 145 at 9. However. the Court linds that neither question posed by Culpepper
had any such effect. The Court sustained Ghazzaoui's objection to Culpepper's question related
to his propensity to sue others whom he leels has wronged him. Ghazzaoui was never required to
answer the question. and at no point was the jury told that Ghazzaoui was involved in a number
of lawsuits stemming Irom his separation from his limner spouse.
The Court also sustained Ghazzaoui's objection to Culpepper's question related to the
District Court's prior "guilty" linding. Both parties were prohibited Irom discussing the details of
the District Court proceeding. and because the jury was not told that the District Court upheld
many of Ghazzaoui' s initial charges. there was no need to inform the jury that the District
Court's ruling was overruled. in part. due to Raiford's perjury. The Court's instruction to the jury
li)lIowing Ghazzaoui's objection was explicitly clear-the

7

jurors were to disregard Culpepper's

question on the "supposed guilty tinding:') As a result. the only information provided to the jury
on the criminal charges underlying Ghazzaoui's t~llsearrest. t~llse imprisonment. and malicious
prosecution claims was that Ghazzaoui had been exoneraled

of all such criminal charges. While

Ghazzaoui contends that the mere fact that Culpepper insinuated that Ghazzaoui had. at one
point in time. been tlllllld guilty of the underlying criminal charges has irreversibly tainted the
jury. no such fact was ever offered as evidence. The Court has no basis to lind that the jury
ignored the Court's instruction or that the District Court proceeding had any impact on. or
relevance to. the jury's vcrdict. Therefore. the Court tinds that no error had been committed
during trial. and even if there had. any such error does not warrant a new trial. See l'a/ll1mys
1'.\ycllOsocial

I'.

7il\l'II olLeonard/OIl'11. Afd.. 223 F. Supp. 2d 699. 706 (D. Md. 2002) (a new trial

is only warranted when it is "reasonably clear that prejudicial error has crept into the record or
that substantial justice has not been done").
III.

CONCLUSION

For the IlJregoing reasons. Plaintin's Motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
59(a). 59(e). and 60(b)(3). ECF Nos. 144. 145. 146. shall be denied. I\. separate Order tllllows.

Dated: June

.s. 2018
GEORGE J. III\.ZE!.
United States District Judge

7 At the close of trial. the jury was also instructed that what the lawyers have said in their objections or in their
questions is not evidence and that the jury should not show prejudice to any attorney because he objected to the
admissibility ofcvidencc or asked for a conference out of the hearing orthe jury.

8