JUDGMENT

S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.

1. This case came on regularly for trial on September 13, 2016 to September 15, 2016 in Department 1 of this Court, the Honorable S. James Otero presiding; the plaintiff appearing by Attorney Franklin L. Ferguson, Jr. from LAW OFFICE OF FRANKLIN L. FERGUSON, JR. and defendant appearing by Attorneys Rickey Ivie and Antonio K. Kizzie from IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT.

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 deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its special verdict consisting of the special issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury, 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

Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Deputy Caroline Rodriguez violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken Sheppard by unreasonably searching plaintiff or his vehicle?

QUESTION NO. 2

Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Deputy Caroline Rodriguez's conduct was the cause of injury to Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?

QUESTION NO. 3

Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Deputy Tai Plunkett violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken Sheppard by unreasonably searching plaintiff or his vehicle?

QUESTION NO. 4

Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Deputy Tai Plunkett's conduct was the cause of injury to Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?

QUESTION NO. 5

Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Deputy Bonnie Hanson violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken Sheppard by unreasonably searching plaintiff or his vehicle?

QUESTION NO. 6

Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Deputy Bonnie Hanson's conduct was the cause of injury to Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?

QUESTION NO. 7

Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Deputy Bonnie Hanson violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken Sheppard by unreasonably seizing plaintiff?

QUESTION NO. 8

Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Deputy Bonnie Hanson's conduct was the cause of injury to Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?

QUESTION NO. 9

Do you find that plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Deputy Tai Plunkett violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Ken Sheppard by excessive force against plaintiff?

QUESTION NO. 10

Do you find that Plaintiff Ken Sheppard has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Deputy Tai Plunkett's conduct was the cause of injury to Plaintiff Ken Sheppard?

It appearing by reason of said special verdict that: Defendant DEPUTIES CAROLINE RODRIGUEZ, TAI PLUNKETT and BONNIE HANSON are entitled to judgment against the plaintiff KEN SHEPPARD.

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