1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ARNOLD RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:19-cv-01108-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 N. ALBONICO, 15 Defendants. 16 17 This section 1983 action previously proceeded to trial based on Plaintiff David 18 Arnold Rodriguez’s claims against Defendants N. Albonico, J. Jackson, and Kyle 19 Loftin. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights 20 through the use of excessive force and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety and 21 serious medical needs. At the conclusion of trial, the Jury found Defendants not liable 22 for any of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for New Trial under Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure 59. (ECF No. 158.) 24 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial is denied. 25 BACKGROUND 26 The full facts and history of this case are well known to the Court and parties. 27 In short, Plaintiff proceeded to trial on claims that during a disciplinary hearing before 28 Defendant Albonico, Defendant Loftin dug his fingers into Plaintiff’s shoulder. Plaintiff 1 also claimed that following the disciplinary hearing, he had been body slammed by 2 Defendants Loftin and Jackson, resulting in head and neck injuries, and that 3 Defendants failed to get Plaintiff medical assistance in a timely manner. Defendants 4 denied these claims. 5 Trial began on October 28, 2024, and lasted three days. (ECF Nos. 145, 147, 6 151.) Jury deliberations began and concluded on the third day of trial, with the jury 7 returning a verdict in favor of Defendants. (ECF Nos. 149, 151.) Plaintiff has now filed 8 a Motion for New Trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which is fully briefed. 9 (Mot. (ECF No. 158); Opp’n (ECF No. 169); Reply (ECF No. 175).) 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 Rule 59(a) partially provides that after a jury trial, a court may grant a new trial 12 “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in 13 federal court[.]” See also Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc.,

(9th 14 Cir. 2003) (internal citations and quotations removed). “Historically recognized 15 grounds include, but are not limited to, claims that the verdict is against the weight of 16 the evidence, that the damages are excessive, or that, for other reasons, the trial was 17 not fair to the party moving.” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.,

, 729 (9th Cir. 18 2007). 19 DISCUSSION 20 In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that a new trial should be granted because he was 21 denied a fair and impartial jury because “[the] Jury consisted of 8 jurors and out of 22 these jurors 6 were white and middle aged . . . .” (Mot. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that 23 “the make up of the Jury did not represent a cross section of the community in which 24 the Court is situated . . . .” (Id.) The Jury Selection and Service Act requires that 25 objections to jury composition in civil cases be brought within seven days after the 26 plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the error.

(c). Plaintiff’s 27 objection here was not raised until over a month after the conclusion of trial. 28 Moreover, even if Plaintiff had objected within the appropriate time, a party “may 1 not . . . challenge the makeup of a jury merely because no members of his race are on 2 the jury.” Gordon v. Duran,

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Apodaca v. 3 Oregon,

(1972)); see also Gray v. Clark, No. 23-15331,

4784530, at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2024) (citing Gordan in connection with jury selection 5 in an action under section 1983). As Plaintiff does not make any showing that 6 members of his race were excluded from the jury, his challenge regarding jury 7 composition fails, even if it was timely. As such, a new trial is not warranted on this 8 basis. 9 Plaintiff also raises claims that he has been subject to a “food doping program” 10 which prison officials “intensified and syncronized [sic] with the timing of pretrial 11 proceeding.” (Mot. at 2.) These claims are unsupported by any evidence beyond 12 Plaintiff’s own statements regarding this alleged food doping program made in 13 declarations and health care services request forms. These do not serve as sufficient 14 evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim and thus this does not serve as a basis for a new 15 trial. 16 Plaintiff asserts that he suffered “a major setback in this litigation” as “[his] tablet 17 does not have an application for the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions” and 18 that he was thus unable to provide proposed instructions. (Mot at 2.) During trial, the 19 Court made every effort to provide Plaintiff with copies of the proposed jury 20 instructions, which were almost entirely taken from the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury 21 Instructions. Plaintiff was given time to review these instructions and raise any 22 concerns or objections he had regarding their content. Plaintiff does not raise any 23 complaint as to any specific jury instructions, but simply that he had difficulty 24 procuring jury instructions because his tablet did not have an application from which 25 he could access the model instructions. This does not constitute grounds for a new 26 trial. 27 In responding to Defendants’ Opposition to his Motion, Plaintiff raises an 28 additional argument that was not raised in his Motion. Specifically, Plaintiff contends 1 | that evidence of cat scan” was improperly excluded. The Court excluded the 2 | 2023 imaging report because the incident in question occurred in 2015, and Plaintiff 3 | was unable to establish the relevance of medical records created eight years after the 4 | incident in question. (See 10/28/24 Trial Tr. (ECF No. 168) at 158:10-161:14, 171:15- 5 | 24.) Plaintiff now vaguely states that these records are “relevant evidence to other 6 | evidence” and notes his 2015 medical records. This is insufficient to establish that the 7 | 2023 medical records were relevant and should have been admitted into evidence. 8 | As such, the Court denies any request for new trial on this basis. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons stated above, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for 11 New Trial (ECF No. 158) is DENIED. 12 Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 173) 13 | As Plaintiff was previously granted In Forma Pauperis status (see ECF No. 23) and this 14 | case is closed, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 173) is 15 | DENIED AS MOOT. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | Dated: _ October 9, 2025 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28