Alberto Ruiz v. Officer Jennifer Wing
991 F.3d 1130
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background
- Ruiz stole an SUV; hotel security video captured violent acts during the theft. He was later located and arrested by Officers Wing and Fals; Ruiz sustained a broken jaw and fractured ribs and later pled guilty in state court to related felonies.
- Ruiz sued the Officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force. He obtained pro bono trial counsel who entered an appearance before trial and remained counsel of record.
- The parties agreed to play the hotel surveillance video to the jury as a joint exhibit at trial; Ruiz did not object at trial and referenced the video during proceedings.
- The jury returned a verdict for the Officers; final judgment was entered January 11, 2018. Ruiz (acting pro se despite counsel of record) filed a Rule 59 motion for new trial on January 26, 2018.
- The district court struck Ruiz’s pro se Rule 59 motion as an unauthorized pro se filing on February 27, 2018; it denied reconsideration on March 6, 2018, the same day Ruiz filed his notice of appeal.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that (1) the timely-filed Rule 59 motion tolled the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) even though it was later stricken, so Ruiz’s notice of appeal was timely; (2) on the merits Ruiz waived or failed to show plain or reversible error, and the judgment and striking order were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Ruiz's Argument | Officers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a pro se Rule 59 motion that is timely filed but later stricken toll the 30-day appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)? | The timely pro se Rule 59 motion tolled the appeal period; the filing was sufficient under Rule 4(a)(4)(A). | A motion stricken as an unauthorized pro se filing was not effectively "filed" and thus does not toll the appeal deadline. | The court held the motion was "filed" for Rule 4(a)(4)(A) purposes; the order striking it disposed of the motion and tolling applied, so the appeal was timely. |
| Was admission of the hotel video reversible error or plain error? | The video was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial because it showed violent conduct hours/miles from the arrest. | The video was relevant to the severity of the underlying crimes (a factor in assessing reasonableness of force) and causation of injuries; Ruiz waived objection by jointly playing it and failing to object at trial. | Ruiz waived the objection by introducing/consenting to the video; in any event, admission was not plain error. |
| Did defense counsel’s comments (opening/closing/exam) require a new trial? | Multiple comments were improper, inflammatory, and prejudicial; some were unobjected-to at trial. | Most comments were supported by testimony or harmless; Ruiz failed to timely object to many; no comments gravely impaired juror deliberation. | Objected-to remarks did not impair substantial rights; unobjected-to remarks do not meet the demanding plain-error standard—no reversible error. |
| Did the district court’s questioning/admonitions and alleged failure to consider a mistrial motion deprive Ruiz of a fair trial? | The court’s interruptions and admonitions prejudiced Ruiz and gave the impression of bias; Ruiz also intended a mistrial motion that wasn’t considered. | The court’s interventions were procedural, corrective, and balanced; Ruiz never articulated or renewed a particularized mistrial motion. | The court’s interventions were not so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial; Ruiz did not make a proper or timely mistrial motion, and summary denial would not warrant a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timeliness of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Green v. DEA, 606 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2010) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (2000) (a party who introduces evidence generally cannot later complain on appeal that it was erroneously admitted)
- United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (plain-error review for evidentiary issues raised first on appeal)
- Oxford Furniture Cos. v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc., 984 F.2d 1118 (11th Cir. 1993) (standards for challenging opposing counsel’s argument)
- Vineyard v. County of Murray, 990 F.2d 1207 (11th Cir. 1993) (remarks justify new trial only if they gravely impair jury’s calm consideration)
- LaChance, United States v. LaChance, 817 F.2d 1491 (11th Cir. 1987) (right to counsel and to proceed pro se are alternative; hybrid representation rests within court’s discretion)
- Fontanillas-Lopez v. Morell Bauzá Cartagena & Dapena, LLC, 832 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2016) (similar holding that a stricken but timely-filed motion tolled the appeal period)