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.

Rutledge v. Cook County

September 30, 2009

GREGORY RUTLEDGE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joan H. Lefkow United States District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a civil right case in which Gregory Rutledge, a pretrial detainee, and Michael Mejia, a prisoner, complained that five defendant officers at the Cook County Department of Corrections ("the Department") facility located at California Boulevard and 26th Street in Chicago violated their constitutional rights through the use of excessive force. On October 29, 2008, a jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs made a timely motion for new trial. Rutledge has since settled with the defendants. Michael Mejia's motion for a new trial is the subject of this decision. For the reasons stated below, the motion for new trial [#261] will be denied.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), "[t]he court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues--and to any party-- . . . after a jury 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). The district court is to consider whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages are excessive, or if for other reasons the trial was not fair to the moving party. McNabola v. Chi. Transit Auth., 10 F.3d 501, 516 (7th Cir.1993)(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court may grant a new trial based on substantial errors in the admission or rejection of evidence. 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, FED. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2805 (2d ed. 1995) (citing cases). In considering a motion for a new trial, the court is entitled to weigh the evidence for itself, Thomas v. Stalter, 20 F.3d 298, 304 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FED. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2806, at 44-45 (1st ed. 1973),*fn1 and to assess the witnesses' credibility. Thomas, 20 F.3d at 304 (citing Whalen v. Roanoke County Bd. of Supervisors, 769 F.2d 221, 226 (4th Cir.1985), overruled on reh'g on other grounds,797 F.2d 170, 171 (4th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (en banc)). The court should not grant a new trial based on the weight of evidence unless "the record shows that the jury's verdict resulted in a miscarriage of justice or where the verdict, on the record, cries out to be overturned or shocks our conscience." Latino v. Kaiser, 58 F.3d 310, 315 (7th Cir. 1995) (hereinafter "Latino"). This rule stems from the Seventh Amendment's limitations on the judge's power to re-examine the jury's verdict. Id. at 314. "The district judge can take away from the jury testimony that reasonable persons could not believe. However, that exception is a narrow one, and can be invoked only where the testimony contradicts indisputable physical facts or laws." Id. at 315 (citations omitted).

II. THE EVIDENCE

On October 9, 2005, Mejia was serving a sentence at Cook County Jail. He was housed in a maximum security area, Division 11, Tier BJ. At approximately 6:00 p.m. that evening, Mejia was in his cell, lying down, as he had been ill. According to medical records in evidence he had been receiving medical care since August for a condition that was at least provisionally diagnosed as blastomycosis. (Blastomycosis is "a rare infection that may develop when people breathe in (inhale) a fungus called Blastomyces dermatitidis, which is found in wood and soil." MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000102.htm#Definition). The medical records indicated he was being treated with an antibiotic (Bactrim), a decongestant (Benadryl) and ibuprofin. According to Mejia, he weighed 146 pounds, 20 pounds less than his weight in October 2008. Other inmates were present in the day room or in their cells. For reasons that are not clear, a distress call was made--the officer identified as having made it denied doing so--indicating that an officer was "in trouble." In fact, no officer was in trouble, nor was there any alarming disturbance in the area other than that the officer had observed Rutledge "popping" the lock of his cell to place his lunch tray on the floor outside. Assuming an officer was in trouble, however, an unknown number of officers -- probably 20 - 30 -- went immediately to Tier BJ to assist. All inmates were ordered out of their cells and directed to line up against a wall for a strip search. The strip search proceeded without incident until the inmates were being instructed to put their clothes back on. Here the versions of the facts diverge.

According to Mejia, the inmates were ordered to remove the insoles from their shoes if they "came out." Mejia's insoles didn't come out (because he had not yet received standard issue shoes) so he left his shoes sitting on the floor. Officer Paolino picked up Mejia's shoes, tore out the insoles and tossed them on the floor. The inmates were ordered to pick up their shoes and bang them together, put them on their feet, then face the wall. Because he was ill, Mejia was slow in performing the tasks. He was in the process of putting his second shoe on when defendant Scott ordered him to "turn the F around." Scott walked up to him, grabbed him by the back of the neck and slammed his head into the wall three times. Paolino then approached him from the right and punched him in the ribs. Scott pulled him back from the wall by the neck and turned him around. Mejia saw Scott, Paolino, Harris and Grayer and several other officers in front of him. Harris then hit Mejia in the face with his fist, followed by punches to the upper body from Lanier, Scott, Grayer, and Paolino, and other officers. Rutledge said Lanier, Paolino, Grayer and Harris all punched or kicked Mejia. One of them threw him to the ground, and officers Grayer, Scott, Paolino, Harris and Lanier and other officers then stomped and kicked him. Mejia attempted to cover his face and move from side to side dodging blows. An officer pulled him to his feet by his braid and pushed him toward another group of about twenty unknown officers who also stomped and kicked him. After this, he was handcuffed and again kicked in the head and ribs.

Other inmate witnesses testified consistently with Mejia's testimony insofar as they described Mejia's slowness to respond to instructions as the officers' provocation to attack him. One inmate witness, Paul Barney, who was standing nearby identified Officer Lanier, rather than Scott, as the officer who slammed Mejia's face into a door or wall. Rutledge and a witness Murchison, however, testified that it was Scott. Plaintiffs' witnesses Elijah Santiago and Barney testified that the beating of Mejia lasted three to seven minutes. Rutledge measured time from the head banging on the wall until Sgt. Johnson told the officers to stop as 1 to 2 minutes. All of the inmate witnesses testified that Mejia did not swing at or hit an officer. Rutledge said Mejia merely talked back just before his head was banged on the wall by asking, "Is this necessary?"

After the altercation, Mejia was taken to the dispensary for medical care. The medical evidence shows that he suffered from multiple contusions, including on the left side of his forehead, and superficial lacerations on the left side of his face. The treating physician noted "blunt trauma" to Mejia's forehead, face, and left rib. Mejia was cleaned up, given Motrin, and taken back to Tier BJ, where he was placed in segregation for 6 days. Mejia thought his ribs had been broken. The physician treating his blastomycosis ordered x-rays. A report dated October 11, 2005 revealed no broken ribs.

The officers consistently testified that Mejia swung at Paolino and that no officer hit or kicked him, or slammed his head against a wall. The remainder of their testimony was divergent on many facts, including whether any force was applied to Mejia and whether Mejia was injured at all. Officer Paolino testified that during the strip search, he gave Mejia several orders to face the wall, which he ignored. Shortly thereafter, Mejia became combative and took a swing at Officers Paolino and Scott, at which time Officers Paolino and Scott took Mejia to the ground and handcuffed him. Officer Paolino does not recall whether Mejia landed a punch on him at any time, although Mejia did attempt to strike him with a closed fist.

Officer Scott testified that he was one of the first officers to respond to the call. He took a position by the stairs and the closet door, about 15-20 feet away from Mejia, who was by the wall but facing out toward the day room. He observed Officer Scott give Mejia several orders to turn around and face the wall, but Mejia refused. As Mejia continued to disobey orders from Officer Scott, both Officers Scott and Paolino moved towards Mejia. Officer Paolino motioned to Mejia to turn around. Mejia then swung at Officer Paolino with a closed fist. Officer Scott, who by then was standing 7-8 feet away from Mejia, grabbed Mejia's arm and attempted to subdue him. Officers Scott and Paolino struggled to restrain Mejia, finally taking Mejia to the ground after approximately one minute. At no time did Officer Scott strike Mejia or push him forcibly to the ground. After restraining Mejia, Officer Scott picked Mejia off the ground and noticed cuts and blood on Mejia's face. Officers Scott and Paolino then escorted Mejia out of Tier BJ.

Officer Lanier testified that when he arrived at Tier BJ, most of the inmates were lined up against the wall, and responding officers were ushering those inmates still in their cells out to the wall. At some point, Officer Lanier heard either Officer Scott or Officer Paolino give Mejia several orders to face the wall. At the time, Officer Lanier was standing by the TV and the phones; 30 feet away from Mejia. Officer Lanier did not approach the source of the commotion, nor did he see any officers restrain or hit Mejia at any time.

Lt. Johnson testified that when he entered Tier BJ through the entrance, he saw Mejia handcuffed on the floor near the stairs and closet door. Mejia was subdued and did not appear to be a threat. Lt. Johnson walked in Mejia's direction, stopping for about 20 seconds by Mejia to ask an officer why Mejia was restrained. Lt. Johnson does not recall which officer he addressed or the officer's reply. According to Lt. Johnson, both Rutledge and Mejia were transported to the dispensary after being restrained because it was standard operating procedure, not because either inmate appeared injured.

Each of the officers was repeatedly impeached with prior inconsistent testimony about the incident. For example, during his deposition, Officer Paolino claimed Mejia swung at him with both fists, but during his testimony Officer Paolino could not recall if this was true. During his deposition, Officer Paolino acknowledged that it was "possible" Mejia swung at him up to four times, but during his testimony Officer Paolino denied this possibility. In his use of force report, Officer Paolino did not mention that Mejia swung at him up to four times and possibly landed a punch. Finally, ...


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.