Opinion ID: 2516126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-trial Motions and Judgment

Text: Before the jury was discharged, the district court inquired whether either party had any motions as to the verdict. When defendants sought additional time to consider post-trial motions, the court asked if they had any motions directly relevant to the verdict before [it] discharge[d] the jury. Id. at 1035. Defendants' counsel responded: Not at this time. Id. On December 22, 2008, defendants renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, and moved, in the alternative, for a new trial, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 59. On March 10, 2009, the district court granted defendants' Rule 50 motion and denied their Rule 59 motion as moot. See Decision & Order, Cash v. Cnty. of Erie, No. 04 Civ. 182 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2009). The court determined that, although ample evidence supported the existence of a County policy permitting male deputies to be alone and unmonitored with female prisoners at ECHC, that policy was not itself unconstitutional. Further, the court determined that Cash had failed to adduce sufficient evidence of prior incidents of sexual assault by male guards of female prisoners at ECHC to place Sheriff Gallivan and the County on notice that such a policy presented a substantial risk of sexual harm to female prisoners. Absent such evidence, the district court concluded that the record failed as a matter of law to support a reasonable jury finding of deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the district court set aside the jury's verdict and entered judgment in favor of defendants. These cross-appeals followed.