Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-1860, Section "K" (3).
June 14, 2004
Before the Court is a Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 26) filed by defendants A. Cronk and the City of New Orleans. Having reviewed the motion, memoranda, trial exhibits, trial testimony, and relevant law, the Court DENIES defendants motion as meritless.
I. BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of the false arrest of plaintiff Jessica Lopez by defendant A. Cronk, a New Orleans Police Department Officer, and the excessive force used by Officer Cronk in making that arrest. On March 22, 2004, this Court held a non-jury trial and rendered its ruling from the bench. The Court entered judgment on March 25, 2004 in favor of plaintiff Lopez and against defendant Cronk in the amount of $7,229.50 for specific damages and $15,000 for general damages, with legal interest. In findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered orally in open court, the Court found the following:
On the night of June 2, 2002, plaintiff Lopez was among a large crowd of people on Bourbon Street who were attempting to traverse a cross street. Their access was prevented by several police officers, including Officer Cronk, who were restraining pedestrian traffic in order to make way for an ambulance. According to Mark Rimoldi, a disinterested eyewitness who observed the entire incident from several feet away, Lopez was pushed out into the street by the force of the crowd behind her. Rimoldi Depo. pg.14, lines 19-25. Officer Cronk violently grabbed Lopez by the arm and forced her, face forward, to the ground, resulting in various soft-tissue injuries. Id. at pg.16, lines 3-10. Lopez was then handcuffed and left standing near a patrol car for several minutes.
Although Lopez was arrested and eventually charged with public intoxication and obstructing a public roadway, no sobriety tests were administered, and, according to a witness for defendants, her intake form indicated that she did not appear under the influence of alcohol. Eyewitness Rimoldi additionally testified that Lopez did not have a drink in her hand, and did not appear intoxicated, at the time of her arrest. Id. at pg. 19, lines 4-6; pg.34, lines 8-10. Rimoldi further testified that, at the time of Lopez's arrest, the ambulance that was attempting to cross Bourbon Street was still twenty to twenty-five feet away, was surrounded by a crowd of nearly one hundred people, approximately twenty-five of whom remained between Lopez and the ambulance. Id. at pg. 17, lines 16-25. Of the estimated one hundred people in the crowd surrounding Lopez, no others were arrested for obstructing a public roadway, by Officer Cronk or by any other New Orleans police officer.
Where the testimony of Officer Cronk differed from that of plaintiff Lopez and eyewitness Rimoldi, the Court found that Officer Cronk was the least credible declarant. Rimoldi was in the best position to accurately describe the incident. Rimoldi was ideally positioned to observe the arrest and he convinced the Court that he possessed disinterested neutrality. Plaintiff's testimony essentially squared with Rimoldi's recollections of the evening in question. On the other hand, defendant's statements sharply contrasted Rimoldi's testimony.
Relying primarily on witness Rimoldi's deposition, and to a lesser extent on plaintiff Lopez's testimony, the Court found that Officer Cronk's arrest of plaintiff was unlawful and his use of force was excessive. The Court found that defendant Cronk lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff. Consequently, the Court held defendant liable for Lopez's injuries.
On April 5, 2003, defendants filed the instant motion, requesting a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Therein, defendants claim that the Court erred in failing to grant defendants' motion to dismiss based on the defense of qualified immunity, a motion made orally on the day of trial.
II. LAW ANALYSIS
The Court considers the applicable standards for new trial in a non-jury case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) and for amended findings pursuant to Rule 52(b). Rule 59(a) provides that a new trial may be granted "in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of the United States." A motion for new trial in a non-jury case or a petition for rehearing should be based upon manifest error of law or mistake of fact, and a judgment should not be set aside except for substantial reasons. Tolliver v. Naor, 2003 WL 21634477, *1 (E.D. La. 2003); see 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2804 (1995). Rule 52(a) does not require that the district court set out findings on all factual questions that arise in a case. Valley v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (5th Cir. 1997). Rather, the district court is expected to provide a clear understanding of the analytical process by which ultimate findings were reached. Id.; see Wright Miller, § 2582. Rule 52(b) provides the district court the opportunity to correct any manifest errors of law or fact; a party who has failed to prove his strongest case is not entitled to a second opportunity by moving to amend a particular finding of fact or conclusion of law. Wright Miller § 2582.
In consideration of this motion, the Court has carefully reviewed the trial testimony, exhibits, and relevant law. A new trial is not appropriate here because the Court has made no manifest error of law or mistake of fact and defendants have offered no substantial reason in favor of new trial. Defendant Cronk's claim that the Court erroneously denied his oral qualified immunity motion is plainly without merit.
Public officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from suit unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable individuals would be aware. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). However, to merit qualified immunity protection, defendants must endure the scrutiny of a two-step process. First, a court must determine whether plaintiff has alleged the violation of a constitutional right. Second, if the plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation, the court must decide if the conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time the challenged conduct occurred. Causey v. Parish of Tangipahoa, 167 F. Supp.2d 898, 908 (E.D. La. 2001).
Defendant Cronk clearly failed to establish qualified immunity under the two-pronged test. Defendants failed to file Rule 12 motion regarding qualified immunity prior to the dispositive motion deadline and neglected to brief the issue prior to trial. Rather, counsel for defendant merely made a brief oral statement in favor qualified immunity in open court on the morning trial commenced. The Court was not persuaded and trial commenced. At trial, evidence proved that Officer Cronk clearly violated Lopez's constitutional rights by unlawfully arresting plaintiff without probable cause and using excessive force. Cronk testified that the plaintiff was singly blocking the intersection by dancing in the street holding a drink. He further testified that she threw the drink at him. The Court found Rimoldi's testimony more credible and further found Cronk's version to be not credible. Rimoldi's testimony made clear that defendant's aggressive behavior was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Thus, qualified immunity does not apply and defendants' motion must be denied. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 26) filed by defendants A. Cronk and the City of New Orleans is hereby DENIED.