Kevin Linn v. Chad Mason, No. 14-1667 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Civil Rights. District court appropriately handled plaintiff's status as an inmate and, in any event, he suffered no prejudice from the jury becoming aware that he was incarcerated as it was inferable from his testimony and the circumstances of his case; no error in denying motion for new trial.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1667 ___________________________ Kevin Linn lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Chad Mason, Deputy, Van Buren County Sheriff's Department lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: October 22, 2014 Filed: October 23, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kevin Linn appeals after a jury returned an adverse verdict in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action and the district court1 denied his motion for a new trial. On appeal, 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Linn asserts that the district court did not adequately prevent the jury from becoming aware that he was incarcerated at the time of the trial, improperly denied his motion for a new trial, and applied the wrong legal standard in assessing the motion. After careful review, we conclude that the district court appropriately handled Linn s status as an inmate and that, in any event, Linn suffered no prejudice because the jury could infer that he was incarcerated from the circumstances of the case and his own testimony. Cf. Holloway v. Alexander, 957 F.2d 529, 530 (8th Cir. 1992) (no prejudice can result from jury seeing that which is already known). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Linn s motion for a new trial, see PFS Distribution Co. v. Raduechel, 574 F.3d 580, 589 (8th Cir. 2009) (denial of motion for new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court s decision is virtually unassailable on appeal and will only be reversed when there is absolute absence of evidence to support jury s verdict), and that the district court applied the appropriate legal standard in assessing that motion, see White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 780-81 (8th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
