Gillispie v. City of Miami Twp.

1

ROGER DEAN GILLISPIE, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF MIAMI TOWNSHIP, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:13-cv-416

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

July 31, 2023

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING INTERVENOR MIAMI TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL (DOC. NO 481); DENYING INTERVENOR MIAMI TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES' MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (DOC. NO 482); AND DENYING DEFENDANT MATTHEW SCOTT MOORE'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 485)

THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presently before the Court are three motions: (1) a motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial filed by Intervenor Miami Township Board of Trustees (“Intervenor”) (Doc. No. 481); (2) a motion to alter or amend the judgment, filed by the Intervenor (Doc No. 482); and (3) a motion to alter or amend judgment, filed by Defendant Matthew Scott Moore (“Moore” or “Defendant”) (Doc. No. 485). Given their overlapping background, issues, and briefing, the Court decides all three motions in this single order. The three motions are post-trial motions relating to a trial that took place between November 7 and November 21, 2022.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Intervenor's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and, in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial (Doc. No. 481); DENIES the Intervenor's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. No. 482); and DENIES Moore's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Doc. No. 485).

I. BACKGROUND

This section provides only some of the very lengthy background for this case, which has been pending for nearly a decade. For additional background see, for example, Document Numbers 298, 322, and 379.

A. Case Commencement and Motions for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Roger Dean Gillispie (“Gillispie” or “Plaintiff”) commenced this case on December 13, 2013. (Doc. No. 1.) Shortly thereafter, he filed his First Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”), which remains the operative complaint for his claims. (Doc. No. 18.) In the Complaint, Gillispie brought several claims against numerous defendants. Among those defendants was Miami Township, Ohio (“Miami Township”), erroneously designated in the Complaint as the City of Miami Township. (Doc. No. 18; Doc. No. 36.) Miami Township operates the Miami Township Police Department. (Doc. No. 397 at PageID 13758; Doc. No. 451 at PageID 15429.)

As a broad overview of Gillispie's claims, he alleged that Defendant Moore-who was a police detective for the Miami Township Police Department at the relevant times-engaged in various acts of police misconduct that “framed [Gillispie] for a series of sexual assaults that he did not commit,” resulting in Gillispie being “deprived of his right to a fair trial,” “wrongfully convict[ed],” and spending “over 20 years incarcerated as an innocent man.” (Doc. No. 18 at PageID 77, 94-96, 98.)

Regarding the underlying circumstances of the crimes for which Gillispie was convicted, as well as Gillispie's criminal trials, incarceration, and certain subsequent court proceedings, the following facts were uncontroverted at trial and included as stipulations of fact in the jury instructions:

On August 20, 1988, two twin sisters, B.W. and C.W. were sexually assaulted after being abducted at gunpoint by a stranger in the parking lot of the Best Products Store in Dayton, Ohio. After seeing news about the Best Products assaults, another woman, S.C., reported being assaulted on August 5, 1988 in a similar manner in a store parking lot in Montgomery County.

On September 5, 1990, Gillispie was arrested and then prosecuted for the Best Products crimes and those related to S.C. Gillispie was convicted at a criminal trial in February 1991 and then granted a new trial. Gillispie was convicted again in June of 1991 for the Best Products crimes involving B.W. and C.W. as well as crimes against S.C. Gillispie was confined for approximately two weeks after his arrest and on bond until his first trial in February 1991. Gillispie was continuously incarcerated between February 5, 1991 and December 22, 2011.

Gillispie was released following a federal court's order to vacate the convictions and requiring a new trial on the basis of the claim that exculpatory evidence was not produced to Gillispie during the criminal prosecution. In 2012, a separate Ohio court vacated Gillispie's conviction and ordered a new trial due to the existence of new evidence about an alternative suspect. Following an order by a judge in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which became final on July 26, 2017, the charges against Gillispie were dismissed with prejudice. On November 19, 2021, Gillispie was declared to be a wrongfully imprisoned individual pursuant to Ohio law by a judge in the Montgomery County Court of Common [P]leas.

(Doc. No. 405 at PageID 13873-74; Doc. No. 472 at PageID 15537.)

On September 16, 2019, Miami Township moved for summary judgment on all claims against it. (Doc. No. 260.) On September 21, 2020, the Court issued an order ruling on Miami Township's motion for summary judgment and on several other motions. (Doc. No. 298.) In that order, the Court granted summary judgment to Miami Township on eight of the nine counts and dismissed the remaining count without prejudice. (Id. at PageID 10932-33.) The Court's ruling was based on the legal standards for determining a motion for summary judgment, the claims at issue, the evidence presented to the Court at the time (which obviously did not include the evidence presented more than two years later at the trial), and the arguments made to the Court at the time. (Doc. No. 298.)

Ultimately, based on that summary judgment order and the unopposed dismissal of some defendants (see, e.g., Doc. No. 302), this case proceeded to trial against only one defendant (Moore) on five claims-all of which were claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). (See Doc. No. 18; Doc. No. 298; Doc. No. 392 at PageID 13687.) Gillispie titled those claims in his Complaint: Suppression of Exculpatory Material; Suggestive Identification; Fabricated Evidence; Malicious Prosecution; and Destruction of Exculpatory Evidence. (Doc. No. 18 at PageID 94-97.) In those claims, Gillispie alleged that he “suffered actual damages, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other damages as a direct and proximate result” of each of the alleged Section 1983 violations. (Id. at PageID 94-98.)

B. The Intervenor's Intervention in this Case

Political subdivisions in Ohio, such as Miami Township, sometimes have a duty to defend and/or a duty to indemnify their employees. (Doc. No. 397 at PageID 13761; Doc. No. 451 at PageID 15429.) The state statute Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.07 sets forth circumstances when a political subdivision has a duty to defend one of its employees and when a political subdivision has a duty to indemnify one of its employees.

On September 23, 2022, “former Defendant Miami Township ... (previously erroneously designated as The City of Miami Township)” filed a motion to intervene in this case (the “Motion to Intervene”).^[1] (Doc. No. 370.) In the Motion to Intervene, the Intervenor explained that it was moving to intervene “for limited participation in the trial of this matter.” (Doc. No. 370 at PageID 12694.) The Intervenor clarified that it was seeking to intervene “for the limited purpose of questioning, argument, and submission of proposed jury instructions and interrogatories on the discreet issues of lack of good faith and scope of employment consistent with [Ohio Rev. Code §] 2744.07.” (Id. at PageID 12697; see also id. at PageID 12706 (the Intervenor “requests intervention only for the limited purpose of submitting jury instructions interrogatories and participation at trial related to the factual issue[s] that go to a claim for indemnity of Moore”).) It specified in its reply brief that it was “not seeking to be a participant in all aspects of the trial.” (Doc. No. 381 at PageID 12824.) The Intervenor argued that allowing it to intervene would enhance judicial economy, it had “common claims and defenses that shared with the main action a common question of law or fact,” and allowing it to intervene would “not prejudice any other party or delay the proceedings.” (Doc. No. 370 at PageID 12704, 12706.)

On October 11, 2022, the Court granted the Motion to Intervene. (Doc. No. 392.) Without addressing the Intervenor's arguments for intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), the Court found that the Intervenor “should be permitted to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b).” (Doc. No. 392 at PageID 13689.) The Court's order also provided clarification regarding limitations on the Intervenor's participation pre-trial and at the trial. (Id. at PageID 13693-94.) Those limitations corresponded with the Intervenor's own requested scope of intervention. (Doc. No. 392 at PageID 13693-94.) Specifically, the Court allowed the Intervenor to intervene at trial for the purpose of questioning, argument, and submitting proposed jury instructions and interrogatories on the discrete issues of lack of good faith and scope of employment consistent with Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.07. (Id.)

On October 13, 2022, the Intervenor filed its Intervenor Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Relief (the “Intervenor Complaint”). (Doc. No. 397.) The Intervenor Complaint contains a single count, which seeks a declaration by this Court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Moore for claims made against him in the underlying action, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07. (Id. at PageID 13763.) The Intervenor Complaint alleges that “[t]he alleged acts and/or...