Seivers v. Minneapolis, City of et al
Filing
110
ORDER adopting the verdict of the jury(Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 6/9/2011. (PJM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 09-816(DSD/SER)
Devon Seivers,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis
Police Officers James Bulleigh
(Badge #0860) and Daniel Lysholm
(Badge #4309), both individually
and officially, John Does and other
unnamed Police Officers, and
Timothy Dolan, Chief of
Minneapolis Police, personally
and individually,
Defendants.
This action arises out of the arrest of plaintiff Devon
Seivers on September 9, 2006.
Seivers filed a nine-count amended
complaint against defendants City of Minneapolis, James Bulleigh,
Daniel Lysholm, John Does, other unnamed police officers and
Timothy Dolan.
See ECF No. 42.
On January 25, 2011, the court
granted partial summary judgment on counts II through IX in favor
of defendants.
See ECF No. 61.
As a result, no claims remained
against the City or Dolan.
The remaining count of excessive force against Bulleigh and
Lysholm proceeded to jury trial from June 6–9, 2011.
After
plaintiff rested, the parties agreed to dismiss the Does, other
unnamed police officers and Dolan.
See ECF No. 107.
Lysholm moved for judgment as a matter of law.
Bulleigh and
The court granted
the motion as to Lysholm and took the motion under advisement as to
Bulleigh.
Id.
The jury returned a verdict that Bulleigh did not
use excessive force on plaintiff on or about September 9, 2006.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
The court adopts the verdict of the jury;
2.
The oral motion for judgment as a matter of law as to
Bulleigh is moot; and
3.
The
remaining
claim
against
defendant
Bulleigh
is
dismissed with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:
June 9, 2011
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?