Civil Rights: ‘Unite the Right’ organizer fails to overturn jury verdict

Where a man who helped organize the “Unite the Right” rally challenged the jury’s verdict on multiple grounds, but the court rejected each argument, the conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence; failure to prevent the conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence from taking place; Virginia state civil conspiracy; and racial, religious or ethnic harassment in violation of Virginia law verdict was affirmed.

Background

Richard Spencer appeals from the district court’s judgment entered after a jury verdict following trial in the civil action brought against him for conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence; failure to prevent the conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence from taking place; Virginia state civil conspiracy; and racial, religious or ethnic harassment in violation of Virginia law.

Venue

Spencer moved to transfer venue from the Charlottesville division of the district court to the division in Lynchburg. The district court denied this motion, concluding that neither § 1404(a) nor § 1404(b) authorized the venue transfer sought. On appeal, Spencer presents no argument challenging these determinations. He has thus waived appellate review of the district court’s transfer denial ruling.

Summary judgment

Spencer challenges the district court’s ruling upholding the magistrate judge’s order striking his summary judgment motion as untimely filed. This court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in so ruling.

Conspiracy

Spencer also challenges the sufficiency of some of the allegations in the second amended complaint, arguing that several plaintiffs could not properly allege a conspiracy violating § 1985(3), that the allegations in this complaint were otherwise insufficient to state a claim under § 1985(3) and that the allegations were insufficient to state claims for Virginia state conspiracy and harassment. Spencer raises this challenge for the first time on appeal.

“Issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances.” “This [c]ourt, however, has held that—in civil cases—we review forfeited arguments for ‘fundamental’ error, an inquiry that is at least as searching as the plain error standard set out by the Supreme Court in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993).”

“Under Olano, an appellate court can use its discretion to correct an error not raised below if (1) there is an error; (2) that error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Here, Spencer has not established fundamental error with respect to the sufficiency of the allegations on these counts.

Judgment

Spencer moved under Rule 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law in his favor before the case was submitted to the jury on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to show he conspired with anyone or sought to harm any of the plaintiffs and because comments he made were constitutionally protected. When he moved, however, post-verdict, for judgment in his favor notwithstanding the verdict, he argued, among other matters, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict on Count Four because no evidence was presented that he “directly harmed” the plaintiffs or “expressly ordered someone else” to harm them. This is the sufficiency argument Spencer raises on appeal.

Because Spencer did not move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) with respect to Count Four based on the absence of evidence that he directly harmed the plaintiffs or expressly ordered someone else to harm them, he was “not allowed” to seek relief under Rule 50(b) on this basis. In raising on Rule 50(b) an argument he was not allowed to raise, Spencer did not comply with the directive to “renew” his Rule 50(a) motion. And because Spencer failed to move “pursuant” to the requirements of Rule 50(b), he has “forfeit[ed] [his] sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal.”

Affirmed.

Sines v. Spencer, Case No. 23-1112, March 27, 2025. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from WDVA at Charlottesville (Moon). Richard Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Yotam Barkai, Karen L. Dunn, Jessica E. Phillips, Alan D. Levine, David E. Mills, Caitlin B. Munley, Robby Lee Ray Saldana, Joshua Michael Siegel and Gabrielle E. Tenzer for Appellees. VLW 025-2-110. 7 pp.

Editor’s note: A version of this digest that appeared in the April 7, 2025, print issue misidentified the case as VLW No. 025-2-107.