Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT I. REESE, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 

Sacramento County Sheriff’s 

Department Deputy DUNCAN 

BROWN (Badge #1220), and 

Sacramento County Sheriff’s 

Department Deputy ZACHARY 

ROSE (Badge # 832), 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00559-GEB-DAD 

ORDER DECLINING TO ENTER 

JUDGMENT AND SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE 

The parties dispute what procedure should be adopted 

following the jury’s return of a “general verdict with answers to 

written questions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(2)(A). Defendants 

argue: “Several issues regarding the jury’s answers to the 

written questions in the verdict form that may affect the form 

and language of the final judgment in this case remain 

unresolved.” (Defs.’ Resp. to Order Vacating Judgment (“Resp.”) 

2:5-6, ECF No. 174.) In light of Defendants’ contention that 

several issues exist “regarding the jury’s answers to the written 

questions in the verdict form;” and the requirement set forth in 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 58(b)(2) that any 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 177 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

judgment entered is “[s]ubject to Rule 54(b),” the “policy 

against piecemeal [appellate] review,” fostered by Rule 54(b), 

guides this Court’s decision on whether to immediately enter 

judgment. Rule 54(b) prescribes in pertinent part that a partial 

judgment should “only” be issued “if the court expressly 

determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 54(b). This determination cannot be made since Defendant 

Zachary Rose contends he is entitled to qualified immunity on 

Plaintiff’s federal excessive force claim. Defendants argue, “a 

briefing schedule ... would allow the parties time to address” 

this remaining issue, inter alia, and that this “would be more 

efficient from a procedural standpoint and may narrow the need 

for additional post-trial motions following the entry of 

judgment.” (Resp. 2:12-15.) Plaintiff counters that “Plaintiff 

was entitled to entry of judgment in his favor on the date of the 

jury verdict.” (Pl.’s Brief in Resp. to Order Vacating J. 2:27-

28, ECF No. 173.) Plaintiff cites Burney v. Intermare K.G., 717 

F.Supp. 793, 808 (M.D. Fl. 1988) in support of his argument. 

However, Plaintiff’s reliance on Burney is misplaced because that 

decision concerns entry of judgment following the jury’s return 

of a general verdict without accompanying answers to written 

questions as are involved in this case. 

Defendants are clearly correct on the pending qualified 

immunity issue. Therefore, Defendants’ request for a briefing 

schedule is granted. Accordingly, within fourteen days from the 

date on which this Order is filed, Defendants shall file their 

opening brief; fourteen days thereafter Plaintiff shall file an 

opposition; and Defendants may file their reply within seven days 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 177 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

after Plaintiff files an opposition. The hearing is scheduled to 

commence at 8:00 AM on Tuesday, January 5, 2016. 

Dated: November 23, 2015 

 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 177 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3