Curtis v. Baker et al

Filing 128

ORDER denying 125 Plaintiff's motion for new trial. Signed on 2/2/12 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra) Modified on 2/2/2012 - mailed to plaintiff(Francis, Alexandra).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
LARRY GENE CURTIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CO I BAKER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:09-CV-06098-DGK

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff’s fall from the top bunk onto a cell floor while in the
custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections. Plaintiff, who is representing himself, has
sued the corrections officer who allegedly ignored a medical restriction that he not be placed in a
top bunk under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After a two day trial, the jury found for the Defendant on all
counts.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for a New Trial” (doc. 125) brought
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’
filings and DENIES the motion for the following reasons.
Standard
A motion for new trial may be granted when the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence, when prejudicial error has entered the record, or when substantial error by the court or
a party requires a new trial be given for justice to be done. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1), 61. The
authority to grant a new trial lies within the discretion of the district court. Gray v. Bicknell, 86
F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996).

“In determining whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court can
rely on its own reading of the evidence—it can weigh the evidence, disbelieve witnesses, and
grant a new trial even where there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict.” White v. Pence,
961 F.2d 776, 780 (8th Cir. 1992). But the court’s discretion is not boundless. It is not free to
reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury’s verdict merely because it feels another result would
be more reasonable, nor may it usurp the jury’s role of weighing the evidence and credibility of
witnesses. Id. at 781. The court may order a new trial only when after careful judicial balancing
it has determined that a miscarriage of justice has resulted. Id. at 780.
Discussion
Plaintiff argues that the jury’s verdict was generally
given under the influence of passion or prejudice, due to erroneous
instructions of the court because of abuse of discretion of the court,
misconduct of the jury or party, or accident or surprise which
ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, or for any other
cause whereby the party was not afforded a reasonable opportunity
to present his evidence and be heard on the merits of the case.
Plaintiff also contends the verdict is “in whole or in part contrary to the evidence.” These
generic assertions are followed by various citations to boilerplate case law, all of which are
accurate, but none of which are particularly applicable to the evidence in this case. The Court
finds no merit to these general arguments.
Plaintiff also argues that Defendant Baker can be held liable for deliberately disregarding
a serious medical need of his. The evidence, however, supports Baker’s contention that after
Plaintiff declared his cellmate to be an enemy and immediately had to be placed in a new cell
which was assigned by Baker’s superiors, Plaintiff did not tell Baker of his medical restriction
that day, and that the alleged conversation may have taken place more than six months prior to
the cell move at issue. Although Sergeant Boudreaux testified that if Baker’s superiors had

2

noted a medical restriction in an inmate’s file when assigning a new cell, that restriction would
have been followed, that does not mean Baker was ever told of the restriction or was otherwise
aware that Plaintiff had a medical restriction limiting him to the bottom bunk. Consequently, the
Court holds the jury’s verdict is supporting by ample evidence in the record, and that the jury’s
verdict did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 2, 2012

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3