Clifford Leon Reid v. Larry Henderson
688 F. App'x 613
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Clifford L. Reid, a pro se Florida prisoner, sued HCI physician assistant Larry Henderson and officer Tamey Mullinax under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for alleged excessive force and failure to intervene.
- Defendants failed to timely respond to Reid’s requests for admissions; they later moved to withdraw those admissions.
- At trial the jury found for defendants; Reid moved under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial alleging perjury and insufficiency of the evidence.
- Reid also challenged the district court’s jury instructions (burden of proof and omission of mental-state/effect instructions).
- The district court allowed withdrawal of admissions, instructed the jury (including that Reid bore the preponderance burden), denied the Rule 59 motion, and entered judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion in permitting withdrawal of admissions | Withdrawal was improper because defendants failed to respond believing discovery closed | Withdrawal promotes resolution on the merits and did not prejudice Reid | Affirmed: court properly applied Rule 36(b); no abuse of discretion |
| Whether jury instructions were improper | Instruction placing preponderance burden on Reid and omission of mental-state/effect instructions prejudiced him | Instructions were proper; Reid proposed and accepted them | Waived under invited-error doctrine; no review |
| Whether Rule 59 relief/new trial was required based on alleged perjury | Defendants committed perjury; new trial warranted | Alleged inconsistencies were for jury to weigh; no newly discovered evidence | Denial affirmed: no new evidence or manifest error; credibility was for jury |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support verdict | Evidence contradicted defendants; verdict unsupported | Trial evidence (records, testimony) provided a legally sufficient basis | Affirmed: reasonable jury could credit defendants; sufficiency met |
Key Cases Cited
- Mut. Serv. Ins. Co. v. Frit Indus., 358 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard for abuse of discretion in withdrawing admissions under Rule 36)
- Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cty., 402 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review and Rule 36(b) factors)
- Ford ex rel. Estate of Ford v. Garcia, 289 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2002) (invited-error doctrine bars challenge to jury instructions a party proposed or accepted)
- Palmer v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 208 F.3d 969 (11th Cir. 2000) (standards for reviewing jury instructions as a whole)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (U.S. 2010) (plaintiff-prisoner bears burden to prove excessive force claims, including malicious/sadistic intent)
- Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2002) (four-factor test for malicious/sadistic use of force in custodial context)
- Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (standards for Rule 59 motions and requirement of newly discovered evidence or manifest error)
- Brochu v. City of Riviera Beach, 304 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2002) (jury’s role in weighing evidence and sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)