Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00248/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00248-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

13cv248-WQH-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN B. KENNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

KASEYLEE LAWRENCE; and 

MATTHEW KOERBER,

Defendants.

Case No.: 13cv248-WQH-AGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are multiple motions to alter or amend judgment or, in 

the alternative, for a new trial filed by Plaintiff John B. Kenney. (ECF Nos. 674, 675, 676, 

677, 678, 679).

I. BACKGROUND 

On October 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging that he was 

deprived of his rights under federal and state law as a result of his involvement with the 

Occupy San Diego protests in late 2011 and early 2012. (ECF No. 21). The Complaint 

alleged facts describing five incidents involving the San Diego Police Department 

(“SDPD”), three named San Diego Police Officers, and Doe San Diego Officers 1-200. 

The following claims remained at the time of trial: 1) a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 694 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

13cv248-WQH-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for excessive force and a violation of the First Amendment against Defendant Koerber with 

respect to October 14, 2011 and 2) a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of 

the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment against Defendant Lawrence with respect to 

January 31, 2012. 

On March 27, 2018, a jury trial began on the remaining claims. On April 2, 2018, 

the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants Koerber and Lawrence. (ECF Nos. 658, 

661, 662). Judgment was entered in favor of all Defendants on all claims and against 

Plaintiff. (ECF No. 663). 

On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed six motions to alter judgment. (ECF Nos. 674-

679). On May 21, 2018, Defendants filed responses in opposition. (ECF Nos. 682-687). 

On May 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed replies. (ECF Nos. 688-693). 

II. CONTENTIONS

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, 

for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) and 59(e). Plaintiff asserts 

the following grounds for his Rule 59 motion: (1) the verdicts were against the weight of 

the evidence, (2) the verdicts were insufficient, (3) the verdicts were based on false 

testimony, (4) substantial errors occurred in the admission/rejection of evidence, (5) failure 

to provide jury instructions, and (6) “constitutional grounds, including on rulings on Muni 

Code 54.0110, etc.” See, e.g., ECF No. 674 at 2. Plaintiff further contends that he is 

entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Plaintiff moves for 

reconsideration of the Court’s rulings made before trial and seeks judgment in his favor on 

causes of action and on Defendants dismissed prior to the trial.

1

 Plaintiff further asserts 

that he was denied discovery and that the Court has exhibited bias against him. 

 

1 Plaintiff does not clearly identify which prior orders are the subject of Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration. 

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 694 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

13cv248-WQH-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s motions fail to provide any grounds justifying 

relief. Defendants contend that Plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial under Rule 59(a). 

Defendants assert that the verdicts were sufficient and supported by the weight of evidence 

and the verdicts were not based on false testimony. Defendant contends that the Court did 

not err in its evidentiary rulings and the Court did not err with respect to any jury 

instructions. Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence or support for 

his request for amendment of judgment under Rule 59(e). Defendants contend that Plaintiff 

further fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). Defendants 

contend that any motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 22, 2018 Order 

granting summary judgment to the City and the SDPD is untimely and that Plaintiff fails 

to provide adequate grounds for relief. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 permits the Court to alter or amend a judgment, 

or order a new trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), (e). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) 

provides that “[t]he court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues. . . 

after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an 

action at law in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). “The trial court may grant a new 

trial, even though the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, if ‘the verdict is contrary 

to the clear weight of the evidence, or is based upon evidence which is false, or to prevent, 

in the sound discretion of the trial court, a miscarriage of justice.’” United States v. 4.0 

Acres of Land, 175 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Oltz v. St. Peter’s Community 

Hosp., 861 F.2d 1440, 1452 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

Upon the Rule 59 motion of the party against whom a verdict has been 

returned, the district court has ‘the duty . . . to weigh the evidence as [the 

court] saw it, and to set aside the verdict of the jury, even though supported 

by substantial evidence, where, in [the court’s] conscientious opinion, the 

verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.” 

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 694 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

13cv248-WQH-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Murphy v. City of 

Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) states, “A motion to alter or amend a judgment 

must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

A district court may alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if “(1) the district court is 

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or 

made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in 

controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001).

Altering or amending a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy to be 

used sparingly . . . .” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides,

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence 

that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to 

move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called 

intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 

(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or 

discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or 

vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other 

reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable 

time--and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment 

or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). The burden of proof is on 

the party bringing the Rule 60(b) motion. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 

367, 383 (1992).

IV. RULING OF THE COURT 

With respect to the Defendants and causes of action remaining at trial, Plaintiff fails 

identify the specific grounds for his Rule 59(a) motion and fails to establish that a new trial 

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 694 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

13cv248-WQH-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

is warranted under Rule 59(a). The Court concludes that the verdicts returned by the jury 

in this case are not contrary to the clear weight of the evidence and that no miscarriage of 

justice has occurred. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial with respect to any causes of action 

and defendants dismissed prior to trial is denied because no trial took place with respect to 

these defendants and claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). Further, Plaintiff fails to 

demonstrate that newly-discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or an 

intervening change in controlling law warrants any amendment or alteration of judgment 

under Rule 59(e). 

Upon review, the Court also concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is 

entitled to any relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). To the extent Plaintiff requests 

reconsideration of orders issued by the Court prior to trial, the Court concludes that Plaintiff

fails to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that relief under Rule 60 is warranted. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to alter or amend judgment or, 

in the alternative, for a new trial are DENIED. (ECF Nos. 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679). 

Dated: May 31, 2018

Case 3:13-cv-00248-WQH-AGS Document 694 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5