The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
:
ELVERT S. BRISCOE, JR., : CASE NO. 1:18-cv-02417
:
Plaintiff, : OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Docs. 39; 43; 57
v. : 58; 65]
:
GARY MOHR, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
:
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Elvert S. Briscoe, Jr., an Ohio prisoner proceeding , has filed this civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction (“ODRC”) officials and Mark Hurayt, a fellow inmate.1
In March 2019 this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).2 This Court also dismissed Briscoe’s claims against Hurayt, although with
little discussion regarding the claim.
Plaintiff appealed.3 The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff Briscoe’s equal protection and excessive force claims and
vacated this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff Briscoe’s procedural due process and retaliation
claims.4 Plaintiff Briscoe did not argue to the Sixth Circuit that this Court erred in
dismissing Briscoe’s state law claim against Defendant Hurayt.5
1 Doc. 1.
2 Doc. 5.
3 Doc. 7.
4 , No. 19-3306, 2020 WL 1813660, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 16, 2020),
, 141 S. Ct. 911 (2020).
After an October 2021 jury trial, a verdict was returned for Plaintiff Briscoe against
Defendant Steve Weishar.6 The jury awarded Plaintiff Briscoe $1,000 in damages and an
additional $2,000 in punitive damages.
This Court ruled on motions during pretrial hearings and during trial. Those rulings
are summarized below.
Plaintiff Briscoe moved for leave to depose Defendant Hurayt.7 The ODRC
Defendants opposed.8 This Court DENIED this motion.9
Plaintiff Briscoe moved for default judgment against Defendant Hurayt.10 Plaintiff
Briscoe brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Ohio State law
against Defendant Hurayt.11 Because Plaintiff Briscoe did not argue this claim on appeal to
the Sixth Circuit, he abandoned it.12 Therefore, this Court DENIED this motion.
ODRC Defendants moved in limine to exclude the proffer of evidence and arguments
that Plaintiff Briscoe suffered collateral injuries because his security classification increased
after his Rules Infraction Board hearing conviction.13 This Court GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part this motion.14 Plaintiff was allowed to proffer evidence that the Rules
Infraction Board hearing conviction elevated his security classification from Level 1 to Level
4. Plaintiff was not allowed to proffer evidence regarding any subsequent emotional
difficulties he suffered or any potential impact on parole.
6 Doc. 70.
7 Doc. 39.
8 Doc. 45.
9 Transcript of Trial (Unofficial) at 14–15, Briscoe v. Mohr, et al., No. 1:18-cv-02417 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 12, 2021).
10 Doc. 43. Doc. 37.
11 Doc. 1 at 39.
12 , 2020 WL 1813660 at *1 (citing , 395 F.3d 291, 311 (6th Cir. 2005)).
13 Doc. 57.
ODRC Defendants moved in limine to exclude the proffer of evidence and witnesses
at trial relating to Plaintiff Briscoe’s claimed mental health and emotional injuries.15 This
Court GRANTED this motion.16
Plaintiff moved for a continuance to allow counsel to appear, to seek newly
discovered evidence, to receive discovery, and to file a class action related to his procedural
due process claim.17 This Court DENIED this motion.18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 1, 2021
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15 Doc. 58.
16 Transcript of Trial (Unofficial) at 9-10, Briscoe v. Mohr, et al., No. 1:18-cv-02417 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 12, 2021).
17 Docs. 65; 65-1.