×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
NY Prisoner Gets § 1983 Claim Reopened on Newly Discovered Evidence
NY Prisoner Gets § 1983 Claim Reopened on Newly Discovered Evidence
William Hemric, a New York state prisoner, filed suit after being beaten.
He alleged that while housed at Rikers Island jail on May 13, 1995, he was
subjected to an unprovoked attack by a guard wielding a foot-long metal
rod, following a verbal altercation with the guard. Hemric "testified that
he lost several teeth during the attack and continued to lose teeth in the
following weeks and months. He also suffered a black eye, a cut lip which
required stitches, injuries to his shoulder, rib, and knee, and recurring
headaches or earaches."
Hemric sued in federal district court under state law claims as well as
federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His lawyer withdrew during
discovery, leaving Hemric to fend for himself. The Court dismissed the §
1983 claims against the Dept. of Correction and city because Hemric
presented no evidence to support them under Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv.,
436 U.S. 658 (1978). Hemric won $10,000 at trial and afterwards asked the
court to reconsider the dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the DOC and
city based on evidence presented during the trial.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) allowed the reopening of the § 1983 claims based on
the newly discovered evidence (at trial) supporting the claims. Therefore,
the Court reopened the § 1983 claims and appointed counsel to represent
Hemric. See: Hemric v. City of New York, USDC SD NY, Case No. 96 Civ. 213
(DLC) (2001), 2001 WL 118561.
Subsequently, on a motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants, the
District Court reversed itself and dismissed Hemric's Monell claims against
the DOC and city. The Court found that Hemric had evidence to support the
Monell claims in his possession but did not use it to oppose the
defendants' motion for summary judgment prior to trial, noting that "Rule
60(b)(2) provides relief when the movant presents newly discovered evidence
that could not have been discovered earlier and that is relevant to the
merits of the litigation." See: Hemric v. City of New York, USDC SD NY,
Case No. 96 Civ. 213 (DLC) (2002), 2002 WL 432381.
William Hemric, a New York state prisoner, filed suit after being beaten.
He alleged that while housed at Rikers Island jail on May 13, 1995, he was
subjected to an unprovoked attack by a guard wielding a foot-long metal
rod, following a verbal altercation with the guard. Hemric "testified that
he lost several teeth during the attack and continued to lose teeth in the
following weeks and months. He also suffered a black eye, a cut lip which
required stitches, injuries to his shoulder, rib, and knee, and recurring
headaches or earaches."
Hemric sued in federal district court under state law claims as well as
federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His lawyer withdrew during
discovery, leaving Hemric to fend for himself. The Court dismissed the §
1983 claims against the Dept. of Correction and city because Hemric
presented no evidence to support them under Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv.,
436 U.S. 658 (1978). Hemric won $10,000 at trial and afterwards asked the
court to reconsider the dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the DOC and
city based on evidence presented during the trial.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) allowed the reopening of the § 1983 claims based on
the newly discovered evidence (at trial) supporting the claims. Therefore,
the Court reopened the § 1983 claims and appointed counsel to represent
Hemric. See: Hemric v. City of New York, USDC SD NY, Case No. 96 Civ. 213
(DLC) (2001), 2001 WL 118561.
Subsequently, on a motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants, the
District Court reversed itself and dismissed Hemric's Monell claims against
the DOC and city. The Court found that Hemric had evidence to support the
Monell claims in his possession but did not use it to oppose the
defendants' motion for summary judgment prior to trial, noting that "Rule
60(b)(2) provides relief when the movant presents newly discovered evidence
that could not have been discovered earlier and that is relevant to the
merits of the litigation." See: Hemric v. City of New York, USDC SD NY,
Case No. 96 Civ. 213 (DLC) (2002), 2002 WL 432381.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Hemric v. City of New York
| Year | 2000 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC SD NY, Case No. 96 Civ. 213 (DLC) (2001), 200 |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Jury Verdict |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 10000 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |