St. Clair v. Pipal
| Decision Date | 25 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-C-9.,81-C-9. |
| Citation | 611 F. Supp. 911 |
| Parties | Edward ST. CLAIR, Plaintiff, v. John M. PIPAL, Orlen G. Wood, Ilene M. Sheahan and John Doe, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Merrick R. Domnitz, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Rudolph M. Conrad, Asst. City Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants.
This action was tried to a jury over a three-day period, beginning on December 5, 1983. Throughout the litigation—including trial—of this matter, the plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by him during the course of his arrest by defendant City of Milwaukee Police Officers on June 26, 1980, on the Summerfest grounds in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Specifically, he maintained that the injuries he sustained were proximately caused by the defendants' use of excessive force, effectively depriving him of his due process and equal protection rights under the United States Constitution.
The defendants, on the other hand, held throughout these proceedings that the force they used in arresting the plaintiff was not excessive but reasonably necessary under the circumstances. They further contended that at all times they acted in good faith and in accordance with their duties as law enforcement officers.
At the conclusion of the three-day trial, the jury returned a special verdict, finding that none of the named defendants had violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights under the circumstances of his arrest in 1980. Based on this finding, the Clerk of Court entered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing, that the action be dismissed on its merits, and that the defendants be awarded their costs incurred in defending this lawsuit.
Presently before the Court in this matter is the plaintiff's motion of January 6, 1984, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, pursuant to Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The thrust of the plaintiff's argument in support of these alternative motions is that, although there is some evidence in the record to support the jury's finding, the verdict is nonetheless against the substantial weight of the credible evidence. Summarizing the admittedly conflicting testimony with respect to the circumstances that precipitated the altercation between the parties and eventually led to his arrest by Officers John M. Pipal, Orlen G. Wood, and Ilene M. Sheahan, the plaintiff contends that the testimony of some four, independent witnesses to the incident supports his account and substantially discredits that offered by the defendants:
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Post-Trial Motions at 5 (January 6, 1984). As indicated, the plaintiff characterizes the testimony of the defendants as largely contradicted and impeached by these eyewitness accounts and, in this regard, suggests that the nature and scope of his injuries as recorded in the trial record can be reconciled only with his version of the incident. Concluding that the jury verdict thus stands against the great weight of the credible evidence adduced and, as such, constitutes a miscarriage of justice, the plaintiff seeks an order directing the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial on the parties' opposing claims.
Predictably, the defendants oppose the entry of any order modifying or overturning the jury verdict returned on December 8, 1983. In specific response to the petition for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the defendants argue simply that, because the plaintiff failed to move for a directed verdict, pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at the close of all the evidence, he is now precluded from petitioning for relief under Rule 50(b). In response to the plaintiff's companion petition for a new trial, the defendants suggest that the clear weight of the evidence supports their account of the subject altercation and does not substantiate the plaintiff's version of the relevant facts.
Recounting in some detail the undeniable discrepancies in the testimony adduced at trial, the defendants nonetheless record their strong disagreement with the plaintiff's descriptions of those incidents precipitating his arrest and of the precise nature and scope of the force used to bring him under control. In this context, the defendants characterize as unequivocal and substantially undisputed the testimony of one Kevin Casey, as follows:
The testimony of Kevin Casey was that he was with Joseph Spak, who testified for the plaintiff, but that he, Casey, saw the beginning of the fight and was the one who drew Spak's attention to the fight. Mr. Casey is the only witness who saw the entire incident from its beginning to its end and was in the best position to make a judgment concerning whether the force used by the officers was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. His testimony on this point was unequivocal. He stated without reservation that the force used by the officers was solely to restrain and gain control of St. Clair and was not excessive.
Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Post-Trial Motions at 3 (January 23, 1984). Moreover, they note that the plaintiff's own witnesses did not view the entire incident and, accordingly, provided testimony at trial inconsistent with that offered by others at the scene. In summary, the defendants characterize the plaintiff's case as based on "the self-serving testimony of the plaintiff and his good friend, Niessen, and the contradictory, incomplete and inconsistent testimony of the other three ... witnesses"; on this basis, the defendants' suggest that the Court would be guilty of an abuse of its discretion if it now overturned the special verdict and granted a new trial on the basis that the jury's findings were against the clear weight of the evidence.
As indicated by the descriptions of the positions articulated by the parties in support of and in opposition to the pending post-trial matters, the Court has carefully considered the merits of the two motions in the context of well-established standards for analysis under Rules 50(b) and 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this undertaking, the Court has reviewed with care its notes taken during the course of the three-day trial in this matter and has re-examined the several exhibits introduced and received throughout those proceedings. Based on this analysis, the Court concludes, for the reasons set forth below, that both post-trial motions must be denied.
Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Whenever a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence is denied or for any reason is not granted, the court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion. Not later than 10 days after entry of judgment, a party who has moved for a directed verdict may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict; or if a verdict was not returned such party, within 10 days after the jury has been discharged, may move for judgment in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict. A motion for a new trial may be joined with this motion, or a new trial may be prayed for in the alternative. If a verdict was returned the court may allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment and either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed. If no verdict was returned the court may direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed or may order a new trial.
The Seventh Circuit's most recent codification of the touchstones to be applied by the trial court in ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is found in Tice v. Lampert Yards, Inc., 761 F.2d 1210, 1213 (7th Cir.1985):
... The standard ... is whether the evidence presented, combined with all reasonable inferences permissibly drawn therefrom, is sufficient to support the verdict when viewed in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed. See, e.g., Syvock v. Milwaukee Boiler Mfg. Co., Inc., 665 F.2d 149, 153 (7th Cir.1981). Any conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the resisting party, and every permissible inference from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the party resisting the motion. Wisconsin Liquor Co. v. Park & Tilford Distilers Corp., 267 F.2d 928, 930 n. 1 (7th Cir.195...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchison v. Amateur Electronics Supply, Inc., 91-C-1377.
...discovered evidence." Rosera v. International Harvester Co., 109 F.R.D. 143, 149 (E.D.Wis.1986) (Warren, J.); St. Clair v. Pipal, 611 F.Supp. 911, 915 (E.D.Wis.1985) (Warren, J.). A Rule 59(a) motion should be granted if the Court determines, inter alia, that (1) the jury verdict is contrar......
-
Agola v. Hagner
...law, 2) manifest errors of fact and 3) newly discovered evidence. Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 709 (9th Cir.1978); St. Clair v. Pipal, 611 F.Supp. 911, 915 (E.D.Wis. 1985); Johnson v. Heckler, 607 F.Supp. 875, 877 (N.D.Ill.1984); Consolidated Data Terminals v. Applied Digital Data Systems......