Opinion ID: 785775
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: JMOL on Davis's unconstitutional false arrest6 claim

Text: 25 We review de novo a district court's decision granting a motion for JMOL. Nadel v. Isaksson, 321 F.3d 266, 272 (2d Cir.2003). We have held that [j]udgment as a matter of law may not properly be granted under Rule 50 unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party, is insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find in her favor. Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat'l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 289 (2d Cir.1998). 26 As an initial matter, we must consider whether the district court erred in rejecting Davis's request to reopen his case before ruling on defendants' Rule 50 motion with regard to the unconstitutional false arrest claim. We have noted that a motion for JMOL pursuant to Rule 50 is designed to give the other party `an opportunity to cure the defects in proof that might otherwise preclude him from taking the case to the jury.' Baskin v. Hawley, 807 F.2d 1120, 1134 (2d Cir.1986) (quoting 5A Moore's Federal Practice para. 50.08, at 50-77 (2d ed.1986)); see also Galdieri-Ambrosini, 136 F.3d at 286 (explaining that same purpose underlies requirement that moving party articulate grounds on which JMOL is sought). As the Advisory Committee on the 1991 amendments explained, [t]he purpose of this requirement [that a motion for judgment be made prior to the close of the trial] is to assure the responding party an opportunity to cure any deficiency in that party's proof that may have been overlooked until called to the party's attention by a late motion for judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 Advisory Committee Note (1991). 27 In this case, defendants moved for JMOL at the close of Davis's direct case. Defendants argued that by failing to identify the charge on which he had been arrested, Davis had failed to establish the absence of probable cause, one of the essential elements of his unconstitutional false arrest claim. During the colloquy with the court, Davis was apparently surprised at this contention and disagreed with defendants' assessment of the law. Davis argued that under the circumstances presented here, where no charges had actually been filed regarding his pre-arrest conduct and where defendants had not as yet identified the charges for which Rodriguez had made the decision to arrest Davis, he had carried his burden of proof by testifying that he had not been doing anything wrong. Nevertheless, Davis requested permission to reopen his affirmative case and ask Officer Rodriguez what he was arrested for. 28 Although Rule 50(a)(1) authorizes the court to consider a motion for judgment as a matter of law as soon as a party has completed a presentation on a fact essential to that party's case[,] ... [i]n no event ... should the court enter judgment against a party who has not been apprised of the materiality of the dispositive fact and been afforded an opportunity to present any available evidence bearing on that fact. Id. Under the circumstances here, Davis should have been given an opportunity to reopen his case. We thus vacate the court's judgment in favor of defendants on the unconstitutional false arrest claim. 29 We must still consider whether Davis had to identify the charges upon which he was arrested in order to carry his burden of proving his § 1983 unconstitutional false arrest claim. This is apparently an issue of first impression for this court. Defendants argue that (1) under Connecticut law, a plaintiff claiming false arrest carries the burden of proving the absence of probable cause; and (2) the absence of probable cause can only be shown by looking at the particular charged crime and showing that under the circumstances, the police officers did not have probable cause to believe that the particular crime was taking place. Davis questions whether Connecticut law really requires such a showing and argues that if it does, Connecticut law is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment and should not be applied to his § 1983 claim. 30 In analyzing § 1983 claims for unconstitutional false arrest, we have generally looked to the law of the state in which the arrest occurred. See Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir.1996) (applying New York false arrest law); Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir.1995) (same); Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359, 366 (2d Cir.1992) (same); Raysor v. Port Auth., 768 F.2d 34, 39-40 (2d Cir.1985) (same); see also Doe v. Bridgeport Police Dep't, 198 F.R.D. 325, 335-36 (D.Conn.2001) (applying Connecticut law). 7 In this case, the events in question took place in Connecticut, and Connecticut law does appear to place the overall burden of proving the absence of probable cause on the false arrest plaintiff. See Beinhorn v. Saraceno, 23 Conn.App. 487, 491, 582 A.2d 208 (1990); see also Doe, 198 F.R.D. at 335 (recognizing and citing Beinhorn). Even if we assume this overall burden of proof applies to Davis's case, 8 however, we do not believe that Davis was required, as part of his direct case, to identify the charges on which he was arrested. As explained below, that issue involves not Davis's overall burden of proof but instead his burden of production. Although we cannot say whether on similar facts a Connecticut state court would require a plaintiff to produce evidence of the crime for which he was arrested in a false arrest case arising solely under state law, we do not believe that a federal court administering a § 1983 unconstitutional false claim should impose such a requirement. 31 The burden of proving the absence of probable cause under § 1983 should not include a blanket requirement that false arrest plaintiffs produce evidence of the charges upon which they were arrested. Defendants have cited no case creating such a requirement, and it would run counter to both logic and fairness. Under defendants' view of the law, someone arrested for no good reason at all on the whim of a police officer, which is what plaintiff suggests occurred here, would have no legal recourse if there were never any charges, formal or informal. On defendants' view, the plaintiff in such circumstances would be unable to prove false arrest. A police officer could immunize himself from suit simply by remaining silent or uninformative as to the reasons for the arrest. 32 Here, similarly, Davis was not charged with any pre-arrest crimes and defendant officers have not identified the reason, before the struggle began, for arresting him. It would have been either impossible or dishonest for Davis to produce the charges Rodriguez had in mind when he decided to arrest him. Davis did not have to identify those charges in order to survive the Rule 50 motion. 33 This does not eliminate (on the assumption we have made) Davis's overall burden of proving that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest him. The term [burden of proof] encompasses two separate burdens of proof. One burden is that of producing evidence, satisfactory to the judge, of a particular fact in issue. The second is the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the alleged fact is true. 2 John W. Strong et al., McCormick on Evidence 425 (4th ed.1992). Davis still carries the burden of persuading the jury that he was doing nothing that could justify the police decision to arrest him before the struggle began. What is at issue here is not Davis's burden of persuasion, but his burden of production. Where a false arrest plaintiff has been charged with a crime for which he was arrested, he must produce evidence directly rebutting that charge in order to carry his burden of production. This would also be the case where there were no formal charges but defendants' intended charge was identified during the plaintiff's affirmative case. In a case such as this one, however, where no charges were filed based on Davis's pre-arrest conduct 9 and where defendants have yet to identify the charges Rodriguez had in mind when he decided to arrest Davis for that conduct, Davis would satisfy his burden of production by testifying as to his conduct at the time the decision to arrest was made (just before Rodriguez called Davis over to his car) and that he had not been charged with a crime based upon that conduct. If, of course, defendants then identify an intended charge during their own case, the burden would shift back to the plaintiff to enter some evidence rebutting that charge. Cf. Gilker, 576 F.2d at 246. That did not happen here because the court granted JMOL at the end of Davis's case. Accordingly, we hold that the court erred in refusing to grant Davis permission to reopen and in granting JMOL to Rodriguez and Rivera. We thus order a new trial on Davis's claim of unconstitutional false arrest. 34 As noted in footnote 8, however, it remains an open question in this circuit whether the plaintiff or the defendant carries the ultimate burden of proof with regard to probable cause in a § 1983 unconstitutional false arrest case. The parties here have not adequately addressed whether state or federal law should determine the allocation of the burden of proof in cases such as this, nor have they addressed the proper burden to be applied if federal law trumps state law. Because the law on this issue remains unclear, the district court may choose to seek briefing from the parties on the applicable burden of proof before it formulates its instructions to the jury in a new trial.