Ken Sheppard v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 154

JUDGMENT by Judge S. James Otero: Plaintiff KEN SHEPPARD shall recover nothing by reason of the complaint, and that defendants shall recover costs from said plaintiff KEN SHEPPARD pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) per cost bill. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

JS-6

6

RICKEY IVIE (#76864)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER R. JACOBS (#157609)
[e-mail]
ANTONIO K. KIZZIE (#279719)
[e-mail]
IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT
444 S. Flower Street, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, California 90071
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

7

Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

1
2
3
4
5

8

October 3, 2016.

VC
P

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
) CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-2920 SJO (JCx)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
) JUDGMENT
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et.al. )
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
KEN SHEPPARD,

25
26
27
28

1

PROPOSED JUDGMENT

1

1.

This case came on regularly for trial on September 13, 2016 to

2

September 15, 2016 in Department 1 of this Court, the Honorable S. James Otero

3

presiding; the plaintiff appearing by Attorney Franklin L. Ferguson, Jr. from LAW

4

OFFICE OF FRANKLIN L. FERGUSON, JR. and defendant appearing by

5

Attorneys Rickey Ivie and Antonio K. Kizzie from IVIE, MCNEILL & WYATT.

6
7
8
9

2.

A jury of 8 persons was regularly impaneled and placed under oath.

Witnesses were placed under oath and testified. After hearing the evidence and
arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was
submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury

10

deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its special verdict consisting of
11

the special issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury,
12
13
14
15

which said verdict was in words and figures as follows, to wit:
“WE, THE JURY in the above-entitled action, unanimously find as follows
on the questions submitted to us:
QUESTION NO. 1

16

Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
17
18
19

Deputy Caroline Rodriguez violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken
Sheppard by unreasonably searching plaintiff or his vehicle?
YES_____

20
21
22

NO__X___

QUESTION NO. 2
Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of

23

the evidence that the Deputy Caroline Rodriguez’s conduct was the cause of injury

24

to Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?

25

YES_____

NO__X___

26
27
28

2

PROPOSED JUDGMENT

1
2

QUESTION NO. 3
Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

3

Deputy Tai Plunkett violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken Sheppard by

4

unreasonably searching plaintiff or his vehicle?
YES_____

5
6
7

NO__X___

QUESTION NO. 4
Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of

8

the evidence that the Deputy Tai Plunkett’s conduct was the cause of injury to

9

Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?

10
11
12

YES_____

NO__X___

QUESTION NO. 5
Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

13

Deputy Bonnie Hanson violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken Sheppard by
14

unreasonably searching plaintiff or his vehicle?
15

YES_____

16
17

NO__X___

QUESTION NO. 6

18

Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of

19

the evidence that the Deputy Bonnie Hanson’s conduct was the cause of injury to

20

Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?
YES_____

21
22

NO__X___

QUESTION NO. 7

23

Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

24

Deputy Bonnie Hanson violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken Sheppard by

25

unreasonably seizing plaintiff?

26

YES_____

NO__X___

27
28

3

PROPOSED JUDGMENT

1
2

QUESTION NO. 8
Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of

3

the evidence that Deputy Bonnie Hanson’s conduct was the cause of injury to

4

Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?
YES_____

5
6
7

NO__X___

QUESTION NO. 9
Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

8

Deputy Tai Plunkett violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken Sheppard by

9

excessive force against plaintiff?

10
11
12

YES_____

NO__X___

QUESTION NO. 10
Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of

13

the evidence that the Deputy Tai Plunkett’s conduct was the cause of injury to
14

Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?
15
16
17

YES_____

NO__X___

It appearing by reason of said special verdict that: Defendant DEPUTIES

18

CAROLINE RODRIGUEZ, TAI PLUNKETT and BONNIE HANSON are

19

entitled to judgment against the plaintiff KEN SHEPPARD.

20

Now, therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that said

21

Plaintiff KEN SHEPPARD shall recover nothing by reason of the complaint, and

22

that defendants shall recover costs from said plaintiff KEN SHEPPARD pursuant

23

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) per cost bill.

24

Dated: October 3, 2016 ______________________________________

25

THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

4

PROPOSED JUDGMENT