Opinion ID: 70504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: scott’s motion for new trial

Text: Scott also argues on appeal that the district court erred when it denied his Motion for a New Trial. “The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial generally is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of that discretion or misapprehension of the law.” Dixon v. Int’l Harvester Co., 754 F.2d 573, 586 (5th Cir. 1985). “A trial court should not grant a new trial on evidentiary grounds unless the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.” Dotson v. Clark Equip. Co., 805 F.2d 1225, 1227 (5th Cir.1986); see also G.A. Thompson & Co. v. Partridge, 636 F.2d 945, 957 (5th Cir.1981) (“The standard at the trial level on a motion for a new trial is whether the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice.”). “[W]e must affirm the verdict unless the evidence-viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict-‘points so 4 No. 08-30708 strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary [conclusion].’” Pryor v. Trane Co., 138 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 870 F.2d 982, 987 (5th Cir.1989)) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In the present case, we cannot conclude that there has been an abuse of discretion or misapprehension of the law. Upon review of the record, we find that the great weight of the evidence before the jury supports the jury’s verdict. During the trial, the jury was presented with testimony and evidence that the officers restrained Scott on July 10, 2005, in response to his attacking an officer and Scott’s “biting, kicking, and spitting.” The jury heard testimony that Scott refused to comply with orders, and instead continued to fight against the officers. The officers testified that none of them had used excessive force against Scott in connection with the July 10, 2005 incident. And the disciplinary records at the David Wade Correctional Center reflects that no disciplinary action was taken against any of the correctional officers for their actions in regards to Scott’s failure to comply on July 10, 2005. While Scott offers a different story and contends that the jury came to the wrong conclusion, our duty is to determine whether the jury’s conclusion is inapposite to the substantial weight of the evidence presented to it. Having reviewed the record, we cannot conclude that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence before it. As a result, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying the Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion for a New Trial.