Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Clerk et al

Filing 174

JUDGMENT: The Court incorporates and enters judgment on the jury's verdicts for Clark and against G-Doffee on G-Doffee's excessive force and retaliatory verbal threat claims against Clark. The Court incorporates and enters judgment on the j ury's verdicts for Cooksey and against G-Doffee on G-Doffee's excessive force, retaliatory verbal threat, and failure to protect claims against Cooksey. All five claims are dismissed with prejudice. G-Doffee's remaining state law claims against Clark and Cooksey are dismissed without prejudice. Clark and Cooksey are entitled to their reasonable costs as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C.§1920. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/12/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

ROBERT THOMAS MAXWELI/G-DOFFEE
ADC #108778

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 5:13-cv-291-DPM

RICHARD CLARK, Sgt., ADC Maximum
Security Unit; RODERICK L. COOKSEY, JR.,
Corporal, ADC Maximum Security Unit, et al.

DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT
1. Before trial, the Court dismissed many of G-Doffee's claims against

various defendants. G-Doffee's claims against LaKenya Jackson, Gregory
Chambers, Ned Butler, Edward Engstrom, William Straughn, Maurice
Williams, Joyce Gooley, Eddie Turner, Anthony Jackson, Connie Jenkins,
Beverly Hillard, and Nurse Hamilton were dismissed without prejudice.
G-Doffee' s official-capacity claims and his claims against Justine Minor were
dismissed with prejudice. His state-law claims unrelated to his claims for
excessive force, failure to protect, and verbal threats were dismissed without
prejudice. And his claims seeking criminal prosecution were dismissed
without prejudice.

2. G-Doffee's § 1983 claims against Clark and Cooksey for excessive
force and retaliatory verbal threats, and his § 1983 claim against Cooksey for
failure to protect were tried to a twelve-person jury from 6 September 2016
to 9 September 2016. The Court denied Clark and Cookset s two motions for
judgment as a matter of law. After deliberations on September 9th, the jury
returned unanimous verdicts in favor of Clark and Cooksey on all five claims.
NQ 171. No party asked for a poll of the jury.

3. The Court incorporates and enters judgment on the jury's verdicts for
Clark and against G-Doffee on G-Doffee' s excessive force and retaliatory
verbal threat claims against Clark.

The Court incorporates and enters

judgment on the jury's verdicts for Cooksey and against G-Doffee on
G-Doffee' s excessive force, retaliatory verbal threat, and failure to protect
claims against Cooksey. All five claims are dismissed with prejudice.
4. G-Doffee' s remaining state law claims against Clark and Cooksey are
dismissed without prejudice.
5. As prevailing parties, Clark and Cooksey are entitled to their
reasonable costs as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and
28U.S.C.§1920.

-2-

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-3-