Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00559-13/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 VACATING JUDGMENT 

Judgment entered on November 9, 2015, is vacated since 

the judgment that will be entered in this case is governed by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(b)(2)(A), 1 rather than Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 58(b)(1)(A). The Court mistakenly 

authorized judgment to be entered prematurely under the latter 

rule, which applies to the entry of judgment following the return 

of a general verdict. In this case, the jury returned a general 

verdict with answers to written questions. Therefore, the former 

rule applies. 

 

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(b)(2)(A) prescribes: “Subject to Rule 

54(b), the court must promptly approve the form of the judgment, which the 

clerk must promptly enter, when: (A) the jury returns a special verdict or a 

general verdict with answers to written questions . . . .” 

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 167 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Since the judgment has been vacated, within ten days 

from the date on which this Order is filed, the parties shall 

file a joint proposed judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict

and responses to the written questions, or separate proposed 

judgments, if agreement cannot be reached on a joint proposed 

judgment, or a brief explaining the procedure that should be 

adopted in light of the jury’s general verdict with answers to 

questions.

Dated: November 10, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-00559-WBS-DB Document 167 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2