Meadows v. Oklahoma City City of et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying 63 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 10/16/2018. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CORTEZ N. MEADOWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-226-G

ORDER
Plaintiff Cortez N. Meadows, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis,
filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging his arrest by Defendant Kristopher
Gellenbeck. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 1-7. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion
for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. No. 63). Defendant City of Oklahoma City and
Defendant Gellenbeck both have filed responses (Doc. Nos. 65, 67), and Plaintiff has
replied (Doc. Nos. 80, 81).
Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which authorizes a court to grant judgment in a party’s favor
after presentation of evidence at trial but prior to submission of the case to the jury for
decision. The rule provides, in relevant part, that a court may grant a motion for judgment
as a matter of law “[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the
court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to
find for the party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1), (2); accord Century 21 Real
Estate Corp. v. Meraj Int’l Inv. Corp., 315 F.3d 1271, 1278 (10th Cir. 2003) (explaining

that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) permits judgment as a matter of law “during
trial”).
This case has not been set for jury trial. Because Plaintiff filed his Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law prior to the commencement of any trial that may be held in
this matter, Plaintiff’s Motion is plainly premature. See Dawson v. Johnson, 266 F. App’x
713, 715, 718 (10th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a motion for judgment as a matter of law
“filed before trial had commenced was not a proper Rule 50(a) motion”).
The Court declines to construe Plaintiff’s Motion as a motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff specifically and exclusively invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
50(a) in his Motion. See Pl.’s Mot. (Doc. No. 63) at 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11. The Court also notes
that Defendant City of Oklahoma City objected to Plaintiff’s Motion on the bases that a
Rule 50(a) motion was premature and that Plaintiff was “attempting to file a Second
Motion for Summary Judgment without obtaining this Court’s permission.” Def. City’s
Resp. (Doc. No. 65) at 2-3 (citing LCvR 56.1(a) (“Absent leave of court, each party may
file only one motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”)); see Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (Doc. No. 27).
Plaintiff failed to address these challenges in either of his replies. See Doc. Nos. 80, 81.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. No. 63) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2018.

2