Pickens et al v. Dowdy et al

Filing 121

ORDER denying 120 Plaintiff's Motion for Jury Interview/Survey. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 08/22/2019. (jrs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
_________________________________________________________________

JOHN M. PICKENS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
No. 17-cv-2205-tmp
v.
)
)
AMY BETH DOWDY,
)
Defendant.
)
)
________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JURY INTERVIEW/SURVEY
_________________________________________________________________
Before the court is plaintiff John M. Pickens’s Motion for
Jury Interview/Survey, filed on August 21, 2019. (ECF No. 120.) For
the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
This case arises from a March 14, 2015, car collision between
Dowdy and Pickens. (ECF No. 62 at 4.) The only contested issues at
trial were the extent and nature of Pickens’s injuries attributable
to the collision. The court held a jury trial in this matter from
August 6, 2018, through August 9, 2018. At the conclusion of trial,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of Pickens and awarded
$6,528.29 for damages attributable to his medical expenses. (ECF
No. 82.) The court entered judgment that day. (ECF No. 87.) Pickens
thereafter filed a motion for a new trial, asserting that no
reasonable jury could have concluded that his neck surgeries were
not necessitated by the injuries he sustained to his neck in the
collision. (ECF No. 92.) The court denied the motion, and Pickens

filed a notice of appeal on October 25, 2018. (ECF No. 95, 98.)
Plaintiff, now proceeding pro se, now seeks to obtain the names,
addresses and contact information of each juror.
As a preliminary matter, this court lacks jurisdiction to
grant the instant motion. “It is settled law that filing a notice
of appeal with the district court divests the district court of
jurisdiction to act in a case, except on remedial matters unrelated
to the merits of the appeal.” Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill v.
Michigan Dep't of Natural Resources, 71 F.3d 1197, 1203 (6th Cir.
1995); see also Greiner v. Macomb Cty., MI, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS
5443, at *3 (6th Cir. Feb 22, 2019). Here, plaintiff’s appeal
involves the question of whether the jury reached a reasonable
conclusion. Thus, any purported misconduct by the jury falls within
the scope of plaintiff’s appeal. 1 Accordingly, the court lacks
jurisdiction to grant the instant motion.
Even if this motion properly fell within the jurisdiction of
this court, the Local Rules of this court preclude the sort of
inquiry Plaintiff seeks in this case. See LR 47.1(e). When seeking
leave

of

court

to

interrogate

a

juror

after

a

verdict,

the

plaintiff “must state the grounds for and the purpose of the
interrogation. If a post-verdict interrogation is approved, the
Court

will

determine

the

scope

of

the

interrogation

and

any

limitations upon the interrogation prior to the interrogation.” LR

1Notably,

plaintiff alleges no jury misconduct whatsoever.
-2-

47.1(e).

It

is

improper

for

a

plaintiff

to

seek

the

names,

addresses and contact information of jurors without providing any
basis for the interview or insight into its scope. Courts do not
permit “fishing expeditions” based on unsubstantiated allegations
of jury misconduct. See United States v. Kimball, 194 F. App’x.
373, 377 (6th Cir. 2006) (upholding denial of motion to interview
the jury where the plaintiff “fail[ed] to cite to any evidence of
misconduct.”) (citing Green Constr. Co. v. Kansas Power and Light
Co., 1 F.3d 1005, 1012 (6th Cir. 1993)). Here, plaintiff fails to
even allege any impropriety by the jury in its deliberations. As a
result, his motion fails on this additional ground.
Based on the foregoing analysis, Plaintiff’s Motion for Jury
Interview/Survey is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
United States Magistrate Judge
August 22, 2019
Date

-3-