Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD 

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR A NEW 

TRIAL

Re: Dkt. No. 318

On September 13, 2016, pro se plaintiff James Ellis Johnson filed a motion for a new trial 

under Rule 59(b). Dkt. No. 318. The motion is denied. 

BACKGROUND

On April 25-26, 2016, the Court held a bench trial under the Federal Tort Claims Act 

(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq., on Johnson’s claims for assault, battery, false arrest and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Twenty witnesses testified, including VA police 

officers, several treating physicians, Johnson, and two expert witnesses. Dkt. No. 316 ¶ 8. On 

August 26, 2016, after the close of the parties’ post-trial briefing, the Court issued a 22-page 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that found against Johnson on the claims for assault, 

false arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and in favor of Johnson on the claim 

for battery from being handcuffed for an extended period. Dkt. No. 316. 

On September 13, 2016, Johnson filed a motion for a new trial. For the most part, the 

motion repeats Johnson’s prior allegations of collusion between the Court and the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, counsel for defendant, along with claims that the trial transcript was “doctored,” Johnson 

was kept “from sleeping for two days” and was rushed to trial, and overall “corruption” in the 

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 325 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

handling of this case. Dkt. No. 318. The Court has previously considered and denied similar 

claims on several occasions in this case. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 316 ¶¶ 6-7. 

Under Rule 59, the authority to grant a new trial “is confided almost entirely to the 

exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 

33, 36 (1980). In an action tried without a jury, as this one was, a court may grant a new trial “for 

any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(B). More specifically, a new trial in a court-tried action may be granted 

for: (1) a manifest error of law; (2) a manifest error of fact; or (3) newly discovered evidence. 

Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978). “It is well-settled that Rule 59 is not a 

vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on 

the merits, or otherwise taking a ‘second bite at the apple.’” Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 

136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). 

None of Johnson’s arguments comes close to showing manifest error of any sort, and he 

does not point to any new evidence that would warrant a new trial. At most, he is seeking to 

relitigate issues decided against him, in some cases on more than one occasion. That is not a basis 

for a new trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 325 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 2