Brown v. Vail et al

Filing 214

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT AND/OR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict and/or New Trial (ECF No. 205 ) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)**7 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Gregory Brown, Prisoner ID: 281829)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

GREGORY TYREE BROWN,
NO. 2:15-CV-0121-TOR
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11
12

v.
ELDON VAIL, in his individual
capacity, DEREK REEVES, in his
individual and official capacities, and
DUSTY RUMSEY, in his individual
and official capacities,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR
DIRECTED VERDICT AND/OR
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Defendant.

13
14
15

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict

16

and/or Motion for New Trial (ECF No. 205). This matter was submitted for

17

consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files

18

herein, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s

19

Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict and/or Motion for New Trial (ECF No. 205)

20

is DENIED.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 1

1
2

BACKGROUND
This case concerns Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants wrongfully

3

confiscated and destroyed, without adequate procedural due process, 55 pictures

4

recovered from Plaintiff’s cell while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Airway

5

Heights Corrections Center. A two-day jury trial was held in this case. On

6

February 11, 2020, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all Defendants. ECF No.

7

198. Plaintiff now seeks relief from the jury verdict through a renewed motion for

8

directed verdict, or, alternatively, a motion for a new trial. ECF No. 205. Plaintiff

9

has also filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, although

10

that Notice will not become effective until the present motions are resolved. ECF

11

No. 211.

12
13
14

DISCUSSION
A. Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict
Plaintiff renews his Motion for a Directed Verdict, arguing that he was

15

denied due process when the photos at issue were confiscated from his cell and

16

destroyed. ECF No. 205 at 4-8.

17

A court may enter a directed verdict when “a party has been fully heard on

18

an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not

19

have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed.

20

R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). If a motion for a directed verdict is denied, the movant may

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 2

1

renew the motion within 28 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).

2

“The standards for determining whether a motion for a directed verdict or a motion

3

for judgment n. o. v. should be granted are identical; in each case, the correct test is

4

whether or not, viewing the evidence as a whole, ‘there is substantial evidence

5

present that could support a finding, by reasonable jurors, for the nonmoving

6

party.’” Quichocho v. Kelvinator Corp., 546 F.2d 812, 813 (9th Cir. 1976)

7

(citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as reasonable

8

minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion even if it is possible to

9

draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence.” Gilbrook v. City of

10
11

Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff argues he is entitled to a directed verdict because he asserts

12

that he was denied access to a fair and impartial tribunal, that the Court should not

13

have allowed the issue of waiver to go to the jury, and that the Court should have

14

entered a directed verdict on the limited issue of ownership of the photos in

15

question. ECF No. 205 at 4-8. Only Plaintiff’s argument about access to a fair and

16

impartial tribunal was preserved in his initial Motion for Directed Verdict. ECF

17

No. 191. However, even construing Plaintiff’s prior motion liberally, all of

18

Plaintiff’s current arguments rely on Plaintiff’s assertion that “[t]he undisputed

19

evidence at trial undeniably demonstrated that [Plaintiff] owned the 55 photos as a

20

matter of law.” ECF No. 205 at 8. Plaintiff overstates the evidence. The parties

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 3

1

disputed whether Plaintiff owned the photos in question. Plaintiff testified that the

2

photos belonged to him. Defendants Reeves and Rumsey testified that, at the time

3

of the cell search, Plaintiff told them that the photos did not belong to him and that

4

Plaintiff did not object to the photos being thrown away. While Plaintiff may

5

disagree with the jury’s evaluation of this competing evidence, a reasonable jury

6

could find, supported by substantial evidence, that the photos at issue did not

7

belong to Plaintiff. Because this finding is supported by substantial evidence,

8

Plaintiff is not entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of ownership.

9

Moreover, as the Court noted throughout this case, Plaintiff can only assert

10

due process rights over property in which he has an actual property interest. See,

11

e.g., ECF No. 127 at 11 (citing Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S.

12

564, 576 (1972); Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. 748, 756

13

(2005)). Plaintiff claimed ownership of the photos. Because the jury found that

14

Plaintiff failed to establish that he had a property interest in the photos, Plaintiff’s

15

other due process arguments are rendered moot. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for

16

Directed Verdict is denied.

17
18

B. Motion for New Trial
Alternatively, Plaintiff moves for a new trial on the grounds that the Court

19

did not adopt Plaintiff’s proposed jury instructions and that Plaintiff was not given

20

access to the Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions. ECF No 205 at 9-15.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 4

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 authorizes a court to grant a motion for a new trial, but it

2

“does not specify the grounds on which a motion for a new trial may be granted.”

3

Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003). Case law

4

has clarified that “[t]he trial court may grant a new trial only if the verdict is

5

contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, is based upon false or perjurious

6

evidence, or to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Passantino v. Johnson &

7

Johnson Consumer Products, Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 510 n.15 (9th Cir. 2000). “Jury

8

instructions must be formulated so that they fairly and adequately cover the issues

9

presented, correctly state the law, and are not misleading.” Chuman v. Wright, 76

10

F.3d 292, 294 (9th Cir. 1996). A district court’s formulation of jury instructions is

11

a matter of the court’s discretion. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 85 F.3d

12

1394, 1397 (9th Cir. 1996). Civil jury instructions are reviewed for error that is

13

more probably than not harmless. Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 805

14

(9th Cir. 2001). The instructions given here, fully allowed Plaintiff to argue his

15

theory of the case.

16

As an initial matter, it is questionable whether Plaintiff preserved error on

17

the issue of jury instructions. A party objecting to a jury instruction “must do so

18

on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the

19

objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c)(1). Plaintiff did not object to the Court’s

20

preliminary jury instructions. Plaintiff later stated that he wished to submit his

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 5

1

own instructions to the jury, but he did not raise a specific objection to any of the

2

Court’s final jury instructions. Plaintiff’s acquiescence to the Court’s jury

3

instructions does not constitute a distinct statement of his objection to the jury

4

instructions on the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c)(1).

5

Even if Plaintiff did adequately preserve the issue of jury instructions,

6

Plaintiff’s current motion does not establish harmful error in the Court’s jury

7

instructions. Instead, Plaintiff reiterates his request that the Court instruct the jury

8

using Plaintiff’s preferred language. The legal issues identified in Plaintiff’s

9

motion – the type of property interest protected, the procedural protections due,

10

and the burden of proof in the case – were addressed by the Court’s own

11

instructions. See ECF No. 193. Plaintiff does not identify error in the instructions

12

that were actually given, and instead only contends that the jury should have been

13

instructed in the manner Plaintiff prefers. ECF No. 205 at 9-15. This does not

14

establish harmful error in the Court’s instructions and does not present grounds for

15

a new trial.

16

Plaintiff also argues he should be granted a new trial because he was never

17

given access to the Ninth Circuit’s Model Jury Instructions, a request which the

18

Court previously denied at ECF No. 188. Plaintiff does not establish any

19

entitlement to these materials. While prisoners do have a protected right of access

20

to law libraries or adequate legal assistance, this right is evaluated on an individual

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 6

1

case basis with an eye to actual injury. Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th

2

Cir. 1994). Plaintiff’s proposed jury instructions were extensive and supported by

3

legal citations. See ECF No. 174. The Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions do

4

not have a pattern jury instruction applicable to the due process claim asserted

5

here. Moreover, Plaintiff was able to review the Court’s own instructions, in

6

advance, which largely adopted the model instructions. Plaintiff has not

7

demonstrated that he suffered any harm caused by his inability to review the model

8

instructions. Plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial on these grounds.

9

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict and/or New Trial (ECF No.
205) is DENIED.
The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish
copies to counsel.
DATED April 7, 2020.

15
16

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 7