Harriman v. Hancock County
627 F.3d 22
1st Cir.2010Background
- Harriman claims he was beaten by Hancock County jail staff during the Oct 2006 weekend; defendants contend he fell and injured himself.
- Harriman was detained in the Hancock County Jail after an October 2006 arrest; the alleged incident occurred while he was in HD-1 and surrounding holding areas.
- Witnesses reported Harriman’s fall and head injury; correctional officers testified they did not strike Harriman.
- Harriman sued in April 2008 under §1983, §1985, and state tort theories; discovery and scheduling orders governed disclosure.
- Harriman supplemented initial disclosures in Feb 2009 to identify Kane and Sheriff; the affidavits were later precluded as a Rule 37(c)(1) sanction.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and Harriman challenged preservation, preclusion, and the merits on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harriman preserved all claims on appeal | Harriman argues de novo review requires considering all claims | Waiver due to perfunctory briefing on non-excessive-force claims | Only excessive-force and municipal-liability claims preserved |
| Whether the Kane and Sheriff affidavits were properly precluded | Affidavits were key to support his claims | Late disclosure violated 26(a) and 37(c) sanctions warranted | Preclusion within district court’s discretion |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on Harriman’s excessive-force claim | Defendants’ accounts are unreliable; memory gaps support trial | Record shows Harriman cannot prove beatings; credibility issues remain | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue of excessive force |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (issues waived when not argued; perfunctory briefing insufficient)
- Santiago-Diaz v. Laboratorio Clinico Y De Referencia Del Este, 456 F.3d 272 (1st Cir. 2006) (sanctions under Rule 37(c) and discretion in preclusion)
- Macaulay v. Anas, 321 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for preclusion)
- Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2009) (reversal limited; preclusion not always fatal; multiple factors)
- LaFrenier v. Kinirey, 550 F.3d 166 (1st Cir. 2008) (credibility cannot create issue for trial when evidence is otherwise consistent)
- Shorette v. Rite Aid of Maine, Inc., 155 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1998) (inadmissible lay opinion; limits on expert/admissible testimony)