MILLER v. NORTH BELLE VERNON BOROUGH et al

Filing 189

ORDER denying 180 Motion for Judgment NOV; denying 180 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 7/18/11. (slh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CARL MILLER,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
NORTH BELLE VERNON
BOROUGH, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 8-1435

Defendants.
ORDER OF COURT
In this action, in which a jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants, Plaintiff has filed
a Motion for JNOV, or in the alternative, for a new trial. Plaintiff’s Motion rests on various
grounds, including his inability to access documents held by his former counsel; alleged errors in
evidentiary and other rulings by the Court; and mistakes made by the jury in assessing the facts
and law placed before it. He requests that the Court grant him a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, or, if not, appoint him counsel, and apprise him of any conversations the Court may have
had with his former counsel regarding the return of Plaintiff’s materials. “[T]he standard for
granting a JNOV is stringent.” May v. Hobart Corp., 839 F. Supp. 309, 311 (E.D. Pa. 1993). In
assessing a JNOV motion, "[a] court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, and determine whether 'the record contains the "minimum quantum of
evidence from which a jury might reasonably afford relief.’” Dorsett v. American Isuzu Motors,
Inc., 805 F. Supp. 1212, 1216 (E.D. Pa. 1992).

Similarly, “[a] court can only exercise its

discretion to grant a new trial because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence when
the failure to do so would result in injustice, or would shock the conscience of the court.” Id.

Weighing the evidence is the province of the jury, and JNOV is inappropriate when the evidence
is contradictory. Id.
Under these standards, Plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict or a new trial. In addition, he has not persuaded me that the appointment of
counsel is warranted, or that the additional relief requested is appropriate under applicable
standards and authority.
For these reasons, this 18th day of July, 2011, it is hereby ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Docket No. [180]) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge