Darrell Cummings v. Matthew T. Whiddon
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13062
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Cummings, a pro se prisoner, sued four prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Eighth Amendment violations; the case was tried to a seven-member jury before a Magistrate Judge.
- On day one afternoon a juror (Juror Linn) appeared to nod off intermittently for about two hours; the Magistrate Judge privately questioned Linn in chambers, then announced he would take no action and allowed her to remain; neither party objected or asked for a record of the in‑camera colloquy.
- Later in trial another juror was excused for knowing a witness; after that dismissal the jury continued with six members; the sleeping juror served as the foreperson.
- The jury returned a defense verdict; Cummings moved for a new trial arguing Linn slept through critical testimony and should have been excused; the Magistrate Judge initially granted a new trial based on the sleeping juror.
- Defendants moved for reconsideration, arguing Cummings had waived the issue by failing to timely object at trial; the Magistrate Judge granted reconsideration, vacated the new‑trial order, denied Cummings’s motion, entered judgment for defendants, and Cummings appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Cummings' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by not disclosing details of in‑camera interview with sleeping juror | Magistrate should have informed parties of what juror said; nondisclosure deprived him of ability to challenge retention | No contemporaneous objection was made; issue waived | Waived for failure to raise below; not considered on appeal |
| Whether Magistrate abused discretion by failing to dismiss sleeping juror | Linn fell asleep and missed critical testimony; dismissal required to protect fair trial | Court observed juror, questioned her, and permissibly concluded she could continue; no timely objection | Waived; court would likely have dismissed if timely objected; no relief on appeal |
| Whether concern about mistrial (if jury fell below six) improperly influenced decision | Magistrate unduly prioritized avoiding mistrial over juror attentiveness | Parties could have objected; strategic waiver bars sandbagging via new‑trial motion | Waived; appellate review limited; no reversible error found |
| Whether Magistrate abused discretion by granting defendants’ motion for reconsideration and denying new trial | Having found sleeping juror warranted new trial, reconsideration was improper | Reconsideration proper because Cummings failed to contemporaneously object; motion raised waiver point and court has plenary power over interlocutory new‑trial orders | Court did not abuse its discretion; waiver doctrine and Bolinger bar relitigation after verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court has discretion on motions to alter or amend judgment)
- Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2005) (motion for reconsideration cannot relitigate matters that could have been raised earlier)
- United States v. Bolinger, 837 F.2d 436 (11th Cir. 1988) (new‑trial motion based on juror misconduct is treated like newly discovered evidence and is barred if party knew of misconduct before verdict and failed to alert court)
- St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, 573 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 2009) (appellate standard: denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)