Floyd Scott v. Ronald A. Lawrence Richard W. Scicluna Gilbert R. Hudson and Jean Rupert

Opinion by Judge King; Concurrence by Judge TROTT.

California state prisoner Floyd Scott appeals pro se the district court’s denial, following a jury trial, of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil action against prison officials Ronald A. Lawrence, Jean Rupert, Richard W. Scicluna and Gilbert R. Hudson, alleging cruel and unusual punishment when the officials physically restrained Scott after he attacked one of the defendant officials. Scott contends that: (1) the district court erred in informing the jury on voir dire that Scott had two prior convictions for rape and sexual assault; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict in favor of the prison officials; (3) the district court erred in admitting statements by defendant Lawrence concerning the restriction against Scott’s contact visits with his children; and (4) the jury was tainted. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and reverse and remand.

I.

On December 31, 1989, Scott and co-inmate Thomas went to the dining room hall at the New Folsom prison in Sacramento to see appellee Lawrence. Lawrence supervised inmates, including Scott and Thomas, in the dining room hall kitchen.

It was Scott’s day off,…

concurring in the result.

I do not disagree with my colleagues that the judgment in this case must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings, but I respectfully disagree with their analysis.

I see nothing wrong with what the trial judge did during voir dire with respect to Scott’s priors, which (as far as I can tell from the record) were expected by both sides to go before the jury on the issue of Scott’s credibility. What the judge did and said was designed at the time to protect Scott from any collateral prejudice that might flow from the limited use of the priors. This, of course, is why neither side objected at anytime to the judge’s voir dire. It is most remarkable that the majority labels as an abuse of discretion an action manifestly taken to protect a litigant’s right to a fair trial, especially when both parties appear to have believed at the time the action was taken that what the judge was doing was perfectly proper. The problem in this case stems from a subsequent and unexpected ruling eliminating the use of Scott’s priors, a ruling the judge could not have foreseen.

Thus, it is because the damaging priors never materialized as evidence that Scott is entitled…

36 F.3d 871 Floyd SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald A. LAWRENCE; Richard W. Scicluna; Gilbert R. Hudson; and Jean Rupert, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-16078. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 15, 1994 * . Decided Sept. 29, 1994. 1 Floyd Scott, in pro se. 2 Michael G. Lee, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, CA, for defendants-appellees. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 4 Before: FLETCHER and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and KING, ** District Judge. 5 Opinion by Judge King; Concurrence by Judge TROTT. KING, District Judge: 6 California state prisoner Floyd Scott appeals pro se the district court's denial, following a jury trial, of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil action against prison officials Ronald A. Lawrence, Jean Rupert, Richard W. Scicluna and Gilbert R. Hudson, alleging cruel and unusual punishment when the officials physically restrained Scott after he attacked one of the defendant officials. Scott contends that: (1) the district court erred in informing the jury on voir dire that Scott had two prior convictions for rape and sexual assault; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict…