Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Moore

September 20, 2007

GERALD JONES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JEFF MOORE, BRAD SHIELDS, LT. WRIGHT, MR. NEIGHBORS, MR. SERLES, AND DR. POWERS, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud U. S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff Gerald Jones' "Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial and Relief from Judgment," filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. (Doc. 135). Defendants Moore, Shields, Wright, Serles and Neighbors have filed a response in opposition (Doc. 136), to which plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 145).

Plaintiff Jones, who at all relevant times was incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center, brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that on February 6, 2001, defendants Serles, Moore, Neighbors, Shields and Wright, intentionally used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See Docs. 1 and 6). Plaintiff further alleged that Dr. Powers was deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs that resulted from the assault-- another Eighth Amendment violation. (See Docs. 1 and 6). Dr. Powers was granted summary judgment (Doc. 97), and the remaining defendants proceeded to trial, where a jury rendered a verdict in their favor and against plaintiff (Doc. 132).

Plaintiff now argues:

1. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence;

2. Plaintiff was prohibited from using the defendants' discovery responses to show that they had perjured themselves;

3. The defendants' testimony contracted each other and their respective incident reports;

4. Plaintiff's medical records showed that the defendants should have noticed that plaintiff had injuries on February 6, 2001;

5. The defendants did not provide any evidence showing how plaintiff's injuries occurred;

6. The fact that plaintiff was seen by Dr. Powers proves plaintiff did not refuse medical treatment;

7. Pictures taken of plaintiff on February 6, 2001, reflect that plaintiff was not being combative;

8. Plaintiff lacked "proper information" in the voir dire regarding the judge's familiarity with a member of the jury pool;

9. Plaintiff's various exhibits were not allowed into evidence;

10. Plaintiff had to give his testimony in a narrative form;

11. During trial correctional officers tried to handcuff plaintiff in the presence of the jury;

12. Plaintiff was not allowed to call the defendants' ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.