Nazario v. Gutierrez

1

CARON NAZARIO, Plaintiff, v. JOE GUTIERREZ, in his personal capacity, and DANIEL CROCKER, in his personal capacity Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:21CV169 (RCY)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division

May 3, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RODERICK C. YOUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case arises from a traffic stop involving Plaintiff Caron Nazario and Defendants Joseph (Joe) Gutierrez and Daniel Crocker, both of whom were at the time police officers employed by the town of Windsor in Isle of Wight, Virginia. Plaintiff is a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army Medical Corps and of Latinx and African American descent. Defendant Crocker initiated the traffic stop when he did not see a license plate on Plaintiff's newly purchased 2020 Chevrolet Tahoe. In the course of the traffic stop, Plaintiff was sprayed with Oleoresin Capsicum (“OC”) spray forcibly removed from his vehicle, forced onto the ground and handcuffed. After restraining Plaintiff, Defendant Crocker conducted a search of Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff was ultimately released and allowed to leave the scene. Following this incident, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging violations of his state and Constitutional rights. The case proceeded to trial, and on January 17, 2023, the jury returned a verdict.

This matter is now before the Court on two post-trial motions filed by Plaintiff Caron Nazario: a Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 and/or In the Alternative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 (“Motion for a New Trial”) (ECF No. 244), and an alternative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Jury Verdict (“Motion to Alter or Amend”) (ECF No. 251). The Motions have been fully briefed, and the Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are fully developed, and argument would not aid the Court in its decisional process. E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to set aside the jury's verdict, the Court will deny the Motion for a New Trial. However, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants on April 2, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint survived Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (see Order, ECF No. 103), and on January 12, 2022, each Defendant and Plaintiff filed individual Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 77, 79, 81.) The Court granted Defendant Crocker's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I (Unreasonable Seizure under the Fourth Amendment), Count II (Use of Excessive Force under the Fourth Amendment), and Count IV (First Amendment) and denied as to the remaining counts. (Id.) The Court granted Defendant Gutierrez's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the same Counts (I, II, and IV) and denied on the remaining counts. (Id.) Finally, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts III and VIII (Illegal Search and Seizure under the Fourth Amendment and Virginia law) against Defendant Crocker, and denied on the remaining counts. (Id.) On the basis of these rulings, Plaintiff proceeded to trial on Counts III and VIII (Illegal Search and Seizure under the Fourth Amendment and Virginia law) against Defendant Gutierrez, and on Counts V, VI, and VII (common law assault, battery, and false imprisonment, respectively) against both Defendants.

On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Exclude Defendant Crocker's Expert Witnesses (ECF No. 83), challenging the testimony of proposed experts Drs. Sautter and Sheorn and proposed “law enforcement expert” Brandon Tatum, and a Motion to Exclude Defendant Gutierrez's Proposed Expert (ECF No. 85), challenging the testimony of proposed “law enforcement expert” Kenneth Wallentine. The Court denied each motion without prejudice on September 15, 2022. (ECF No. 120.) Plaintiff subsequently filed motions to limit the Defendants' expert witnesses' testimony, in the form of a Motion to Exclude Brandon Tatum (ECF No. 122) and a Motion to Exclude or Limit Kenneth Wallentine's Testimony (ECF No. 126). Both motions were denied in part and granted in part. (ECF No. 218.) As to Kenneth Wallentine, the Court found that he had the experience to qualify as a use of force expert and denied Plaintiff's motion to limit Wallentine's use of the word “reasonableness.” (Id. at 2.) The Court granted Plaintiff's motion as to Wallentine's use of the word “resisting” and granted the motion as to any comments Wallentine offered that opine on Plaintiff's credibility. (Id.) As to Brandon Tatum, the Court found that he was qualified as an expert based on his tenure as a police officer but ordered that his qualifications and testimony be limited to his time and experience as a police officer. (Id.) This Order also addressed several other Motions in Limine filed by both Plaintiff and Defendant Crocker. (See ECF No. 218.)

On January 9, 2023, trial began, and a jury was duly sworn. Counsel presented closing arguments on the morning of January 13, 2023, and the jury began deliberations that afternoon. On January 17, 2023, after a day and a half of deliberation,^[1] the jury returned a unanimous verdict. (ECF No. 238.) As to Defendant Crocker, the jury awarded Plaintiff nothing in compensatory damages and $1,000.00 in punitive damages under the Virginia state law illegal search claim and found for Defendant Crocker on all remaining counts. (Id.) As to Defendant Gutierrez, the jury found him liable for common law assault and awarded Plaintiff $2,685.00 in compensatory damages but found for Defendant Gutierrez on all other counts. (Id.)

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a New Trial. (ECF No. 244.) Defendant Crocker and Defendant Gutierrez filed briefs in opposition shortly thereafter. (ECF Nos. 245, 247.) As an alternative to his previously filed Motion for a New Trial, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Alter or Amend on January 31, 2023. (ECF No. 251.) Defendant Crocker filed a response on February 6, 2023 (ECF No. 263), and Plaintiff replied on February 8, 2023 (ECF No. 266).

II. LEGAL STANDARD^[2]

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), a court may grant a motion for a new trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1). The Fourth Circuit has interpreted this Rule to mean that “the district court must set aside the verdict and grant a new trial if . . . (1) the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, or (2) is based upon evidence which is false, or (3) will result in a miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict.” Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 762 F.3d 339, 346 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted). “The decision to grant or deny a new trial is within the sound discretion of the district court.” Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 1998). In reviewing a motion for a new trial, “the crucial inquiry is ‘whether an error occurred in the conduct - of the trial that was so grievous as to have rendered the trial unfair.'” Bristol Steel & Iron Works v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 41 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 1967).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for a New Trial

Plaintiff argues that a new trial is appropriate on five different grounds. The Court examines each of these grounds in turn.^[3]

1. Verdict is the result of the jury failing to follow law and instructions

Plaintiff first takes issue with the jury's finding that Defendant Gutierrez was liable for assault but not liable for battery. Plaintiff argues that, pursuant to the jury instructions, the assault triggered Nazario's right to resist and necessarily the right to refuse to exit the vehicle, which in turn meant that any force Gutierrez used to overcome this legal resistance, if it touched Nazario, was a battery. (Mem. Supp. Mot. New Trial 3, ECF No. 245.) According to Plaintiff, the jury must have determined that any assault by Defendant Gutierrez occurred prior to his use of OC spray, and therefore the use of the spray was unreasonable and constituted a battery. (Id. at 3-4.) In support of this theory, Plaintiff asserts that the events which could constitute assault would be Defendant Gutierrez's statement that Nazario was “fixin' to ride the lightning,” or the pointing of his firearm, taser, or OC spray at Nazario. (Pl. Reply to Crocker 4, ECF No. 249.) Based on the jury's alleged failures to follow instructions with regards to Defendant Gutierrez's assault, Plaintiff then extrapolates that there is a substantial likelihood that the jury also failed to follow the Court's instructions regarding the false imprisonment claim against Defendant Gutierrez and the assault, battery, and false imprisonment claims against Defendant Crocker. (Mem. Supp. Mot. New Trial 5.)

In separate briefs, both Defendant Gutierrez and Defendant Crocker respond that there is no evidence to rebut the presumption that the jury followed the law and instructions. (Crocker Mem. Opp'n Mot. New Trial, ECF No. 247; Gutierrez Mem. Opp'n Mot. New Trial, ECF No. 248.) They argue that assault and battery are separate charges with separate elements, and that if a finding of assault required an accompanying finding of battery and false imprisonment, then the jury instructions should have reflected this. (Id.) They also point out that it is unclear what exact event the jury found to constitute an assault: while Plaintiff deduces that the assault occurred before the OC spray, it is entirely possible that the jury found that Gutierrez in fact assaulted Nazario after Nazario was sprayed. (Crocker Mem. Opp'n Mot. New Trial 5-6.)

Jury Instruction Nos. 41 and...