Coleman v. Hutchins et al

Filing 143

JUDGMENT: Based on this Court's earlier Order on summary judgment, Judgment is entered against Vanessa Cole, the personal representative of Roy Lee Richards' Jr.'s estate, on Cole's claim against the City of Little Rock, Cole' ;s claim against chief of police Kenton Buckner in his official capacity, and Cole's claim against Kenton Buckner in his individual capacity. The parties tried the unresolved federal and state claims to a jury in Little Rock starting 8/9/2021 an d ending 8/16/2021. After hearing all the evidence, this Court's instructions, and the parties' arguments, the jury deliberated and returned verdict no. 1, which is attached and incorporated. Thereafter, with the parties' agreement, th e Court excused a juror. After further instructions from the Court, argument by counsel, and deliberation onMonday, August 16th, the jury returned verdict no. 2, which is also attached and incorporated. Based on the jury's verdict no. 2, the Cou rt enters judgment for Dennis Hutchins and against Vanessa Cole, as personal representative of the Estate of Roy Lee Richards Jr., on all of Cole's federal and state excessive-force-based claims, including Cole's wrongful death claim and su rvival claims. Cole's amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Defendants are entitled to costs, as allowed by law and adjudicated by this Court, if they file a motion for them by 8/27/2021. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/18/2021. (jak)

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 143 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
VANESSA COLE,
As Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy
Lee Richards Jr.
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 4:17-cv-553-DPM

DENNIS HUTCHINS;
KENTON BUCKNER; and
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK

DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT

1. On 22 February 2019, the Court partly granted and partly
denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On the factual
record presented, the Court denied defendant Hutchins’s request for
qualified immunity against the excessive force claims. Hutchins took
an interlocutory appeal. Considering the disputed material facts in the
light most favorable to plaintiff Cole, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
denial of qualified immunity.
(8th Cir. 2020).

Cole v. Hutchins, 959 F.3d 1127

Based on this Court’s earlier Order on summary

judgment, this Court enters judgment against Vanessa Cole, the
personal representative of Roy Lee Richards Jr.’s estate, on Cole’s claim
against the City of Little Rock, Cole’s claim against chief of police
Kenton Buckner in his official capacity, and Cole’s claim against Kenton
Buckner in his individual capacity.

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 143 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 8

2. The parties tried the unresolved federal and state claims,
which were all rooted in allegedly excessive force, to a jury in Little
Rock starting on 9 August 2021 and ending on 16 August 2021. The
Court empaneled a jury of eight people. After hearing all the evidence,
this Court’s instructions, and the parties’ arguments, the jury
deliberated and returned verdict no. 1, which is attached and
incorporated, on the evening of Friday, August 13th. Thereafter, with
the parties’ agreement, the Court excused a juror.

After further

instructions from the Court, argument by counsel, and deliberation on
Monday, August 16th, the jury returned verdict no. 2, which is also
attached and incorporated. Based on the jury’s verdict no. 2, the Court
enters judgment for Dennis Hutchins and against Vanessa Cole, as
personal representative of the Estate of Roy Lee Richards Jr., on all of
Cole’s federal and state excessive-force-based claims, including Cole’s
wrongful death claim and survival claims.
3. Vanessa Cole’s amended complaint is dismissed with
prejudice. As the prevailing parties, defendants are entitled to costs, as
allowed by law and adjudicated by this Court, if they file a motion for
them by 27 August 2021. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1920;
42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

–2–

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 143 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 8

___________________________
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
_____________________

–3–

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 143 Filed 08/18/21 Page 4 of 8

VERDICT NO. 1
1.

How was Richards holding his long gun when HutcPff.l!t,1his rifle? (Pick one)
EAST""'~-At"rlr'icm1'NSAS
(a) With the barrel pointing at the sky

AUG 13 2021

@)with the barrel pointing at Underwood's house

2.

Was Underwoo~
r outside his apartment when Hutchins
fired his rifle? (circle one of the italicized words)

Answer Question 3 only if you answered "inside" to Question 2.
If you answered Question 2 "outside", then strike through
Question 3.

3.

Approximately how much time passed between Underwood
closing his front door and Hutchins firing his rifle?
£_ £.S ~

Court's Final Verdict No. 1
13 August 2021

CH~ "t, S.tlc,2AJ M.

4:17-cv-553-DPM
Cole v. Hutchins

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 143 Filed 08/18/21 Page 5 of 8

4.

Was Richar facing r turning away from Underwood's house
when Hutchins ired his rifle? (Circle one of the italicized
phrases)

5.

Where was Richards located when Hutchins fired his rifle?
(Circle one)
n the yard approaching Underwood's house
Going up Underwood's porch stairs
(c) Starting to go down Underwood's porch stairs
(d) Going down Underwood's porch stairs

6.

In the circumstances, was it feasible for Hutchins to give
Richards a warning before firing his rifle?

;x
Foreperson

Court's Final Verdict No. 1
13 August 2021

Yes
No

Date/time

4:17-cv-553-DPM
Cole v. Hutchins

l!Al~~l..

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 143 Filed 08/18/21 Page 6 of 8

FILED

VERDICT NO. 2

AUG 16 2021

1.

d"AMIH OPEN COIJV.T
On the Richards Estate's excessive force cla1moaiga&iii

By: ~ ~1-/; ~9WNS
4

Hutchins, as submitted in Instruction No. 11, we find for:
- - -- - -

Richards Estate

_ _---,,X
. __,___ _

Hutchins

If you found for the Richards Estate in Question 1, then answer
Questions 2-10 below. If you found for Hutchins in Qu~stion
1, then your deliberations are done. Your foreperson ~hould
date and sign the verdict and inform the Court that you have a
verdict.

2.

We find Vanessa Cole's mental anguish damages to be:
$_ _ __

3.

We find Vanessa Cole's pecuniary damages to be:
$_ __

4.

_

We find Roy Richards Sr.'s mental anguish damages to be:
$_ _ __

5.

We find Jordan Richards' s mental anguish damages to be:
$_ _ __

Court's Final Verdict No. 2
16 August 2021

4:17-cv-553-DPM
Cole v. Hutchins

-

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 143 Filed 08/18/21 Page 7 of 8

6.

We find Jordan Richards' s pecuniary damages to be:
$_ _ __

7.

We find Joshua Richards' s mental anguish damages to be:
$_ __

8.

We find Joshua Richards' s pecuniary damages to be:
$_ __

9.

_

_

We find Roy Richards Jr. and the Richards Estate's damages
to be:
• Loss of life .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . . $- - - - - • Funeral expenses .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. $_ _ __ _ _
• Conscious pain and suffering . . . . . . . . . $_ _ _ _ __
• Disfigurement . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
• Lost future earnings .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

$_ _ _ _ __
$_ _ _ _ __

Total $- - - - - -

Court's Final Verdict No. 2
16 August 2021

4:17-cv-553-DPM
Cole v. Hutchins

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 143 Filed 08/18/21 Page 8 of 8

VERDICT NO. 2

10.

We assess punitive damages against Dennis Hutchins, as
submitted in Instruction No. 14, of $ _ __ _ _ __
(state amount, or, if none, write the word "none").

Foreperson
Court's Final Verdict No. 2
16 August 2021

Date/time
4:17-cv-553-DPM
Cole v. Hutchins