Barnes v. Alves
304 F.R.D. 363
| W.D.N.Y. | 2015Background
- This case concerns alleged civil-rights violations via excessive force and retaliation in 2001–2002.
- Bench trial occurred nonjury July 28–Aug 2014; Plaintiff appeared pro se.
- Court found no preponderance showing violations; claims dismissed; judgment entered Nov 10, 2014.
- Plaintiff moved for new trial and for recusal; responses and replies followed through early 2015.
- Court denied both recusal and new-trial motions after considering arguments and evidence.
- Plaintiff requested additional witnesses; motions to compel and subpoenas were denied earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) viability | Plaintiff claims bias and prejudice. | No basis for recusal; rulings were proper. | Recusal denied; no objective evidence of bias. |
| Grounds for a Rule 59 new trial | New trial warranted on four grounds. | Arguments better suited for appeal; no manifest error. | Motion for new trial denied. |
| Admission of disciplinary history evidence | Disciplinary history admitted improperly. | Plaintiff himself offered the evidence; proper use contested. | Not a basis for new trial; evidentiary rulings appellate matter. |
| Exclusion of witnesses Strong and Fields | Preclusion prejudicial; essential testimony. | Witnesses not compelled; relevance disputed. | Exclusion did not warrant new trial. |
| Omission of Leonidas Sierra testimony | Sierra’s testimony would change outcome. | Untimely; testimony would not alter credibility/findings. | No basis for new trial; Sierra testimony not outcome-determinative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (bias must be proven by objective circumstances; not mere disagreement)
- LiButti v. United States, 178 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.1999) (recusal review requires objective evidence of bias or prejudice)
- Ball v. Interoceanica Corp., 71 F.3d 73 (2d Cir.1995) (new-trial standard: manifest error or unfairness required)
- United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811 (2d Cir.1992) (discretion in ruling on recusal and related motions)
- Geshwind v. Garrick, 738 F.Supp. 792 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (appeal-oriented arguments; avoid relitigating issues)