Jewkes et al v. Shackelton, No. 1:2011cv00112 - Document 85 (D. Colo. 2012)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Clerk re: 84 Order by Clerk on 11/2/2012. (klyon, )

Download PDF
Jewkes et al v. Shackelton Doc. 85 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 11-cv-00112-REB-BNB HEIDI JEWKES, and NATASHA SWENSON, Plaintiffs, v. C.O. THEODORE SHACKLETON, Correctional Officer at the Denver Women’s Correctional Facility, in his individual capacity, Defendant. FINAL JUDGMENT In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) and the orders entered during the pendency of this case, the following Final Judgment is hereby entered. A. Pursuant to the Amended Order Re: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#63] entered by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on July 23, 2012, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#38] filed December 22, 2011, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The motion is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff Nicole Montoya’s claims set forth in her Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [#35], filed October 14, 2011, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; b. The motion is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff Adeline Roybal’s claims set Dockets.Justia.com forth in her Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [#35], filed October 14, 2011, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; c. The motion is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff Nicole Morris’s claims set forth in her Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [#35], filed October 14, 2011, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; d. The motion is DENIED with respect to the claims of Heidi Jewkes and Natasha Swenson set forth in their Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [#35], filed October 14, 2011; and 2. That JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of defendant, Theodore Shackleton, against plaintiffs Adeline Roybal, Nicole Montoya, and Nicole Morris as to their claims set forth in Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [#35] filed October 14, 2011; provided, that the Judgment as to these claims is WITHOUT PREJUDICE. B. This matter proceeded to trial before a jury of nine, duly sworn, commencing on August 6, 2012. In accordance with the verdicts [#80-7 and #80-8] of the jury on August 8, 2012 and the Order Denying Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [#84] entered by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on October 29, 2012, which verdict and order are incorporated herein by this reference, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That defendant Theodore Shackleton’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under FED. R. CIV. P. 50, which was asserted in open court at the close of the evidence during the trial of this case, is DENIED; 2. That JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of the plaintiffs, Heidi Jewkes and Natasha Swenson, and against the defendant, Theodore Shackleton, as to the plaintiff’s claims for damages under the Eighth Amendment, as found by the jury in this case, whose verdicts were read into the record in open court on August 8, 2012 (see Courtroom Minutes [#80-7 & #80-8] filed August 8, 2012; and specifically: a. The jury’s verdict awarded damages in the amount of $1,000.00 to plaintiff Heidi Jewkes and against defendant Theodore Shackleton; b. The jury’s verdict awarded damages in the amount of $1,000.00 to plaintiff Natasha Swenson and against defendant Theodore Shackleton.; 3. That the plaintiffs are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. 4. Post-judgment interest shall accrue on the judgment amounts awarded at the rate of 0.18% from the date of entry of judgment. DATED at Denver, Colorado, November 2, 2012. FOR THE COURT: JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK By: s/Edward P. Butler Edward P. Butler Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY THE COURT:

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.