Avery et al v. City of Milwaukee et al
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 9/15/2017 GRANTING 189 Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Partial Final Judgment. Clerk of Court DIRECTED to issue partial final judgment in Plaintiff's favor in accordance with the terms of this Order and the jury verdict of 6/11/2015 (Docket #137), together with post-judgment interest calculated in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from 6/11/2015. See Order. (cc: all counsel) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIAM DAMON AVERY,
Case No. 11-CV-408-JPS
CITY OF MILWAUKEE, DETECTIVE
GILBERT HERNANDEZ, DETECTIVE
DANIEL PHILLIPS, DETECTIVE
KATHERINE HEIN, DETECTIVE
TIMOTHY HEIER, DETECTIVE KEVIN
ARMBRUSTER, and DETECTIVE
More than six years ago, Plaintiff William Damon Avery (“Avery”)
filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Milwaukee
(“Milwaukee”) and several of its police officers alleging that he had been
wrongly convicted of homicide because of the unconstitutional conduct of
several Milwaukee police officers. (Docket #1). Avery brought claims that
related to evidence fabrication and Brady violations, as well as a Monell
policy-or-practice claim against Milwaukee. Id. The district court dismissed
on summary judgment Avery’s Brady claims but allowed Avery’s evidence
fabrication claims and Monell claim to proceed to trial.1
On June 11, 2015, after trial, a jury entered a verdict in Avery’s favor
and against Milwaukee and two officers in the amount of $1,000,000.
(Docket #137). The same day, the district court entered judgment on the jury
At that time, the case was pending before the late Judge Rudolph Randa.
verdict. (Docket #142). On September 29, 2015, though, the district court
entered an amended judgment in favor of all defendants, setting aside the
jury’s verdict. (Docket #156).
Avery appealed and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded the case to this court for reinstatement of the jury’s verdict
and resolution of the Brady claims that it determined had been incorrectly
dismissed on summary judgment. See (Docket #188).
Before the Court now is Avery’s motion for entry of judgment on his
claims that were previously tried to a jury. (Docket #189). The defendants
have informed the Court that they do not intend to file an opposition to
Avery’s motion. (Docket #192). Based on the arguments made in connection
with Avery’s motion, the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b), and the defendants’ non-opposition to the motion, the Court finds no
just reason for delaying entry of judgment in Avery’s favor. The Court will,
therefore, enter partial final judgment as to those claims that were tried to
a jury and upon which the jury awarded Avery $1,000,000.00. Fed. R. Civ.
As to the issue of post-judgment interest, the Court of Appeals ruled
that this Court shall, upon resolution of the remand proceedings, “calculate
postjudgment interest on the $1,000,000 jury verdict from June 11, 2015, the
date of the reinstated verdict and judgment.” (Docket #188 at 24). Although
remand proceedings are not yet complete as to all of Avery’s claims, the
Court will impose the appropriate post-judgment interest as to the claims
disposed of by Avery’s instant motion.
Page 2 of 3
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff William Damon Avery’s motion for
entry of partial final judgment (Docket #189) be and the same is hereby
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue
partial final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, William Damon Avery, in
accordance with the terms of this Order and the jury verdict of June 11,
2015, (Docket #137), together with post-judgment interest calculated in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from June 11, 2015.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 15th day of September, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?