JUDGMENT

GEORGE H. WU, District Judge.

1. This case came on regularly for trial on October 10, 2017 to October 17, 2017 in Department 9D of this Court, the Honorable George H. Wu presiding; the Plaintiff appearing by Attorney John Burton from LAW OFFICE OF JOHN BURTON and Maria Cavalluzzi of CAVALLUZZI & CAVALLUZZI, and Defendants 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 # 1

Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Carlos Vega violated Plaintiff's rights by arresting Plaintiff without probable cause?

If you answered "YES" to Question # 1, please answer Question # 2. If you answered "NO" skip to Question # 3.

QUESTION # 3

Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Vega violated Plaintiff's rights by deliberately fabricating evidence or using techniques that were so coercive and abusive that he knew, or was deliberately indifferent, that those techniques would yield false information that was used to criminally charge or prosecute Plaintiff?

QUESTION #5

Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Stangeland violated Plaintiff's rights by deliberately fabricating evidence or using techniques that were so coercive and abusive that he knew, or was deliberately indifferent, that those techniques would yield false information that was used to criminally charge or prosecute Plaintiff?

It appearing by reason of said special verdict that: Defendant SGT. CARLOS VEGA and SGT. DENNIS STANGELAND are entitled to judgment against the plaintiff TERENCE B. TEKOH.

Now, therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that said Plaintiff TERENCE B. TEKOH shall recover nothing by reason of the complaint, and that defendants shall recover costs from said plaintiff TERENCE B. TEKOH pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The cost bill will be submitted directly to this Court for its review and determination.