Wallace 331022 v. Jones ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Martice Deshawn Wallace, No. CV-17-04126-PHX-DJH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Todd Riggs, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 284). No 16 Defendant has filed a response. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied. 17 In February 2022, a three-day trial was held on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim, 18 and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. (Doc. 282). Plaintiff requests that 19 the Court vacate the judgment and order a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 59(a). (Doc. 284). 21 Courts may grant motions for new trial “for any reason for which a new trial has 22 heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). 23 Trial courts have “large” authority to grant or deny new trials. Gasperini v. Ctr. for 24 Humans., Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 433 (1996). In considering a motion for new trial, the Court 25 “is not obliged to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and it is free 26 to weigh the evidence and evaluate for itself the credibility of the witnesses.” United 27 States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000). 28 Plaintiff argues a new trial is warranted for three reasons: (1) the verdict is contrary 1 || to the evidence presented at trial, (2) the jury did not take a proper amount of time to 2|| deliberate, and (3) the verdict is “a miscarriage of justice.” (Doc. 284 at 1). The Court 3 || rejects all three reasons. 4 First, there was substantial evidence showing that Defendants’ actions were 5 || reasonable. Although Plaintiff argues that certain evidence was underappreciated, several 6|| witnesses gave compelling testimony that supported a finding in Defendants’ favor. || Second, the jury’s time spent deliberating is not necessarily an indication that they ignored 8 || the evidence. Given the strength of the evidence in Defendants’ favor, it is reasonable for 9|| ajury to have come to a verdict in less than an hour. Third, given the reasonableness of || the Jury’s verdict, the Court finds no miscarriage of justice. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (Doc. 284) is || denied. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Status Update (Doc. 293) 15 || is granted. 16 Dated this 29th day of August, 2022. 17 18 Ye SL 13 norable'Dian¢g4. Huretewa 0 United States District Fudge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-