Roberts v. Herrington et al

Filing 72

JUDGMENT following Jury trial, Roberts's excessive force claims against Herrington and Levengood are dismissed with prejudice. His claims against Defendants Hobbs, Naylor, Lay, Warner, Robertson, and Holstead are dismissed without prejudice. R oberts's excessive force claims against Gibson and Fitzpatrick are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust 36 . Roberts's claims against the John Does for violating prison policies are dismissed without prejudice 22 . Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/17/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BRUNSON ROBERTS
ADC #127841
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:12-cv-188-DPM

JOHN HERRINGTON, Sergeant, Cummins Unit, ADC;
BRIAN LEVENGOOD, Sergeant, Cummins Unit, ADC;
RAY HOBBS, Director, ADC; RAYMOND NAYLOR, Disciplinary
Administrator, ADC; G. LAY, Warden, Cummins Unit, ADC;
M. WARNER, Warden, Cummins Unit, ADC;
V. ROBERTSON, Major of Security, Cummins Unit, ADC;
J. HOLSTEAD, Corporal, Cummins Unit, ADC;
TINA GIBSON, Sergeant, Cummins Unit, ADC;
MERLIN FITZPATRICK, Lieutenant, Cummins Unit, ADC;
and JOHN DOES, Cummins Unit, ADC
DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT
1. Brunson Roberts' s excessive-force claims were tried to a twelveperson jury from 15to16 December 2014. After deliberations, on December
16th the jury returned two unanimous verdicts. See attached. The jury found
for John Herrington and for Brian Levengood on Roberts' s claims against each
of them. Roberts' s excessive-force claims against Herrington are dismissed
with prejudice. Roberts' s excessive-force claims against Levengood are
dismissed with prejudice.
2. Roberts also brought claims against Hobbs, Naylor, Lay, Warner,

Robertson, and Holstead that were unrelated to his excessive-force claims.
Those claims are dismissed without prejudice. NQ 8. Roberts' s excessive-force
claims against Gibson and Fitzpatrick are dismissed without prejudice for
failure to exhaust. NQ 36. Roberts's claims against the John Does for violating
prison policies are dismissed without prejudice. NQ 22.

-2-

IN~:~~:;~:.~(>-

VERDICT NO. 1

1.

JAMES W. McCORMACK -- : r:~ :,.
8
' "-1..~L ' '"

On Brunson Roberts' s excessive force claim again~t )olmt~i~~;-as-- --submitted in Instruction No. 9, we find for:

____ John Herrington
/

- - - - Brunson Roberts

If you found for Roberts on Question 1, then answer Question 2. If you

found for Herrington on Question 1, your deliberations on Herrington are
done. Do not answer Question 2.

2.

We find Brunson Roberts' s damages to be$ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
(state the amount, or if you find that Roberts' s damages have no
monetary value, put $1.00).

y.e_<:_ I lo I d-(J \ lf
Foreperson

Court's Final Verdict Forms 16 December 2014

Date

Roberts v. Herrington, et al.
5:12-cv-206-DPM

U.S. Dl3Tr:.2·~- COURT
EASTERN DISTF~iC ;·OF /;..RKANSAS

Fl

i
, -.,,~D
~1 r.. ~~! '..; ,
b~:.~~' . '·

DEC 1 6 2014

VERDICT NO. 2

IN OPEN COLJff-:·

1.

,

.

.

On Brunson Roberts s excessive force claim

as submitted in Instruction No. 10, we find for:

JA~ES W ..McCORMACK. C! r-rn<
.
a~st Bnan LevengooQ, ~v
DEPUTY CLER!< ~U

___L__ Brian Levengood

- - - - Brunson Roberts

If you found for Roberts on Question 1, then answer Question 2. If you

found for Levengood on Question 1, your deliberations on Levengood are
done. Do not answer Question 2.

2.

We find Brunson Roberts's damages to be$ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
(state the amount, or if you find that Roberts' s damages have no
monetary value, put$1.00).

tl+tc [,,,_~(
Foreperson

Court's Final Verdict Forms 16 December 2014

Date

Roberts v. Herrington, et al.

5:12-cv-206-DPM