Jay Russell Shafer v. County of Santa Barbara et al, No. 2:2011cv08110 - Document 183 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT REGARDING DEFENDANTDEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA by Judge Fernando M. Olguin: THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. That final judgment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54, be entered in favor of Plaintiff JAY RUS SELL SHAFER on his Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force brought against Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA; 2. That final judgment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54, be entered in favor of Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA on Pl aintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER's Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution and on Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER's First Amendment claim for violation of free speech; 3. That Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER take damages pursuant to the jury's verdict; and 4. That Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER recover his costs of suit other than attorney's fees. (see document for further details) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jay Russell Shafer v. County of Santa Barbara et al Doc. 183 1 2 3 4 JS-6 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAY RUSSELL SHAFER, Case No: 2:11-cv-08110-FMO-FFM 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 FINAL JUDGMENT REGARDING DEFENDANT DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA v. [Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 & 58] 15 16 17 18 19 20 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BILL BROWN, individually and as Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Sheriff of Santa Barbara County, Courtroom: 22 – 5th Floor Spring St. SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA, #2465 individually and as a peace officer, DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. 21 22 This action was tried by a jury in Courtroom 22 of the United States 23 24 Olguin, United States District Judge Presiding; the plaintiff JAY RUSSELL 25 SHAFER appearing by attorney Thomas E. Beck, and the defendant DEPUTY 26 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 District Court for the Central District of California, the Honorable Fernando M. FREDDY PADILLA appearing by attorney Mary Pat Barry, Senior Deputy 27 County Counsel for the County of Santa Barbara. Trial commenced on 28 December 9, 2014 and the jury returned a verdict on December 17, 2014. FINAL JUDGMENT REGARDING DEFENDANT DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA [PROPOSED] 1. Dockets.Justia.com 1 As to Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER’s Fourth Amendment claim of 2 unlawful arrest, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the jury rendered a verdict 3 finding that Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA’s arrest of Plaintiff JAY 4 RUSSELL SHAFER was lawful. 5 As to Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER’s Fourth Amendment claim of 6 excessive force, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the jury rendered a verdict 7 finding that Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA used excessive force 8 against Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER. 9 10 11 12 13 As to Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER’s claim that Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA violated his First Amendment right to free speech, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the jury rendered a verdict finding that Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA did not violate Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER’ s First Amendment right. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 As to Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER’s Fourth Amendment claim that Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA maliciously prosecuted him, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the jury rendered a verdict finding that Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA did not maliciously prosecute Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER. The jury further rendered its verdict that Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL 21 SHAFER suffered damages as follows: economic damages in the amount of 22 forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) and non-economic damages in the amount 23 of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). 24 The jury further rendered its verdict that Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY 25 26 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 PADILLA acted with malice, oppression, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER’s rights. The jury assessed zero dollars ($0) in 27 punitive damages against Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA. 28 FINAL JUDGMENT REGARDING DEFENDANT DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA [PROPOSED] 2. 1 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. That final judgment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 3 Rule 54, be entered in favor of Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER on his Fourth 4 Amendment claim for excessive force brought against Defendant DEPUTY 5 FREDDY PADILLA; 6 7 8 9 10 2. That final judgment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54, be entered in favor of Defendant DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA on Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER’s Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution and on Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER’s First Amendment claim for violation of free speech; 11 12 13 14 15 16 3. That Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER take damages pursuant to the jury’s verdict; and 4. That Plaintiff JAY RUSSELL SHAFER recover his costs of suit other than attorney’s fees. IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 20 Dated: December 22, 2014 /s/ . HONORABLE FERNANDO M. OLGUIN United States District Judge Central District of California 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 27 28 FINAL JUDGMENT REGARDING DEFENDANT DEPUTY FREDDY PADILLA [PROPOSED] 3.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
