Robert Washington v. Kevin Doran, 16-1026

In May 2011 at Pittsburgh State Correctional Institution, Robert Washington had a verbal confrontation with correctional officers Kaas Doran and Michael McCloskey that led to a misconduct report and an order to move him cells.
Officers handcuffed Washington with a leather tether; while being escorted down an unmonitored corridor, Washington allegedly bumped into Doran and McCloskey pulled his legs out from under him, causing him to fall face down; officers testified he was resisting and kicking.
Washington alleged officers struck and kicked him after he fell, and that Doran used a racial slur and hit him in the head with a metal object; he reported cuts and lacerations and later received a nurse’s exam and photographs.
After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for defendants; Washington moved for a new trial (pro se) asserting the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and the record was tainted; the District Court denied the motion for lack of support.
On appeal Washington proceeded pro se; the Third Circuit treated a brief filed in this Court as an amended notice of appeal and reviewed both denial of the new trial motion and the judgment on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury verdict was against weight of evidence	Verdict shocks conscience; trial evidence conflicted and favored Washington	Jury credited officers; record supports verdict	Affirmed: no miscarriage of justice; denial of new trial not an abuse of discretion
Whether District Court erred in denying new trial for lack of supporting brief	Washington argued motion; later filed a supporting memorandum	Court argued motion had no contemporaneous supporting brief as required by local practice	Affirmed: court permissibly denied motion for lack of any support
Whether jury was exposed to prejudicial evidence (conviction/prior misconduct)	Washington contended jury saw his conviction and misconduct history	Defendants and record show documents were redacted and not sent to jury	Affirmed: no taint; exhibits were redacted and not presented to jury
Whether new arguments on appeal or ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim may be considered	Washington raised additional claims in reply and alleged counsel ineffective	Defendants argued late arguments waived; no constitutional right to effective civil counsel	Court declined to consider new arguments; rejected ineffective-assistance claim

Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (brief filed timely may constitute notice of appeal)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se filings held to less stringent standards)
Leonard v. Stemtech Int’l Inc., 834 F.3d 376 (3d Cir.) (new trial granted only when great weight of evidence cuts against verdict)
Klein v. Hollings, 992 F.2d 1285 (3d Cir.) (verdict must "cry out to be overturned" to disturb jury result)
Gambino v. Morris, 134 F.3d 156 (3d Cir.) (arguments raised first in reply brief ordinarily not considered)
Ziccardi v. City of Philadelphia, 288 F.3d 57 (3d Cir.) (court generally declines to address arguments not raised below)
Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772 (3d Cir.) (issues waived if not raised in opening brief)
Kushner v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., 620 F.2d 404 (3d Cir.) (no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in civil cases)