United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
A. BRUEGGEN Counsel for Defendants McLaughlin and Gawrys.
DEFENDANT OFFICERS MCLAUGHLIN AND GAWRYS'S RULE
50 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
Honorable Joan B. Gottschall Judge.
Gillian McLaughlin and Steve Gawrys (“Movants”),
by their attorneys, move this Honorable Court for the entry
of an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50
for judgment as a matter of law and state:
the Court ruled on Summary Judgment (Dkt. 373) and clarified
that ruling (Dkt. 436), the only remaining claims against the
• Count I alleging a violation of Plaintiff s right to a
fair trial against McLaughlin and Gawrys based on suppression
or fabrication of: Plaintiffs gangbook identification on
August 27 or 29, 1988; an alleged line up on August 31, 1988;
and an alleged recant by eyewitness Orlando Lopez on
September 15, 1988;
• Count II alleging a federal claim for conspiracy
against McLaughlin and Gawrys;
• Count III alleging a claim for failure to intervene
against McLaughlin and Gawrys;
• Count VI alleging a state law conspiracy claim against
McLaughlin and Gawrys. Plaintiff has rested his case at trial
after having an opportunity to fully be heard on his claims.
However, Plaintiff has presented insufficient evidence upon
which a jury could find in Plaintiffs favor for the remaining
claims against the Movants. Accordingly, the lack of any
evidence to support Plaintiff's remaining claims against
them confirms that the Movants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
should render judgment as a matter of law when “a party
has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find
for that party on that issue.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). The
standard for granting judgment as a matter of law
“mirrors” the standard for granting summary
judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc.,
530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000), quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51 (1986). There must be
more than a mere scintilla of evidence to support the
party's claim. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252;
Filipovich v. K&R Exp. Systems, Inc., 391 F.3d
859, 863 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court should determine whether
there is sufficient evidence upon which the jury could
properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing
it, upon whom the burden of proof is imposed.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. If the non-movant
presents insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable person
could properly base a verdict in his favor, judgment as a
matter of law for the movant is appropriate. James v.
Milwaukee County, 956 F.2d 696, 698 (7th Cir. 1992). A
directed verdict in favor of a defendant is proper if
reasonable people, viewing the facts most favorably to the
plaintiff, could not conclude that the plaintiff has made out
a prima facie case. Cannon v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs
Union, 657 F.2d 173, 175-76 (7th Cir. 1981).
There Is No. Evidence That McLaughlin Violated
Plaintiff's Due Process Rights (Count I)
evidence in the trial record is clear that McLaughlin was not
involved in the August 27/29, 1988 gang book identification
of Plaintiff and that she was not at the police station on
September 15, 1988. Plaintiff's own questioning of
McLaughlin drives these facts home:
Q. So, just to summarize, the September 15th lineup at which
Jacques was identified, you ...