Spotville v. Woodruff

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30797
Summary Calendar
JOHN SPOTVILLE, ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
BETTY SPOTVILLE, wife of John Spotville,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MATTHEW WOODRUFF, Individually
and in his official capacity as
a Jefferson Parish Sheriff Officer;
JOSEPH MOORE, Individually and in
his official capacity as a Jefferson
Parish Sheriff Officer; HARRY LEE, Sheriff,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-228-T
May 1, 2002
Before GARWOOD, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Betty Spotville appeals the denial of her motion for a new
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
trial following a final judgment in favor of the defendants in her
civil rights action.
The record does not include any transcript of the evidence at
trial (it does include the jury charge and a transcript of the
closing arguments to the jury) or of the evidence at the
evidentiary hearing(s) on the motion for new trial or of anything
said by the court (or counsel) during or at the conclusion thereof.
The record includes the court’s minute entry stating that the
motion for new trial was “DENIED” and that the defense motion for
sanctions was “DENIED”, but contains no further indication of the
court’s reasons for so ruling. Appellant’s counsel moved in the
district court for preparation at government expense of the
transcripts of the trial and of all hearings associated with the
motion for new trial, and this motion was denied, the court finding
that, although plaintiff had been granted IFP status for appeal, an
appeal would be frivolous and lacking in a substantial question.
Appellant made a similar motion in this court, as well as a motion
“to supplement the record by adding a transcript of the court’s
oral reasons for judgment” and a motion “to supplement her record
excerpts by adding a transcript of the court’s oral reasons for
judgment,” each of which motions were opposed and were denied by
the Clerk of this Court. Appellant has never sought review by a
judge of this Court of any of these orders of the Clerk, as
authorized by Fifth Circuit Local Rule 27.1; nor are any of these
2
rulings, or that of the district court respecting transcripts at
government expense, complained of in appellant’s brief to this
Court.
Spotville asserts that because she alleged that defense
counsel was observed by her talking with members of the jury, in
front of the courthouse, on the courthouse steps and in the hallway
during trial, the district court had to allow her to subpoena and
question the jurors about that contact. The trial court has
discretion to consider the methods to be used to investigate an
allegation of jury misconduct. Martinez v. Food City, Inc., 658
F.2d 369, 372 (5th Cir. 1981). The Local Rules for the Eastern
District of Louisiana do not mandate a different result. Appellant
has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
denying a motion for a new trial on this ground. See Diaz v.
Methodist Hosp., 46 F.3d 493, 495 (5th Cir. 1995).
Spotville also contends that the district court erred in
denying her motion for a new trial on the basis of improper closing
arguments by defense counsel. She has failed to show the district
court abused its discretion in its admonitions to defense counsel
following objections. Lewis v. Parish of Terrebonne, 894 F.2d 142,
147 (5th Cir. 1990). As to the statements to which Spotville did
not object, she has failed to show that reversal is called for
under the plain error rule. See Reese v. Mercury Marine Div. of
Brunswick Corp., 793 F.2d 1416, 1429 (5th Cir. 1986). It has not
3
been shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying
a new trial on this ground. See Diaz, 46 F.3d at 495.
Spotville does not raise on appeal her motion for new trial
assertion that the jury charge was erroneous, and that issue is
therefore deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Spotville’s counsel challenges the district court’s claimed
imposition of a “sanction” against him in the form of an entirely
undescribed and unspecified alleged “admonition.” The record
reflects only that the defense motion for sanctions was “DENIED”
and it does not reveal (or suggest) that any sanction was imposed
or that any “admonition” was given. Therefore, counsel is not
entitled to relief on this ground.
The district court’s judgment denying the motion for a new
trial and denying sanctions is
AFFIRMED.
4