United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division
ESTATE OF BILLY COLLINS, JR., BILLY JOE COLLINS, ADMINISTRATOR, PLAINTIFF,
STEPHEN WILBURN, et al., DEFENDANTS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. WILHOIT, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion for
Reconsideration and For Findings of Fact [Docket No. 105].
The matter has been fully briefed by the parties [Docket Nos.
107 and 108]. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court
will overrule the motion.
case arises from the arrest of Billy Collins, Jr. on May 29,
2015 in Louisa, Kentucky. In its Complaint, the Estate of
Billy Collins, Jr., Billy Joseph Collins, Administrator
alleged that Defendants Stephen Wilburn, Jordan Miller, Chief
Greg Fugitt, the Louisa City Police Department, and the City
of Louisa, Kentucky, as well as co-Defendants Lawrence
County, Kentucky, Lawrence County Sheriffs Office, Lawrence
County Sheriff Garrett Roberts, Deputy Mason Keefer, and
Deputy Douglas Wilhite, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
violated Billy Collins Jr.'s rights under the United
States Constitution to be free from unreasonable use of
force, that Chief Fugitt failed to properly train or
supervise his subordinates, and that the City of Louisa and
LPD should be held vicariously liable for such violations by
virtue of respondeat superior. Plaintiff also alleged
negligent use of force under Kentucky law, and sought
compensatory and punitive damages.
Court dismissed the claims against the Lawrence County
Defendants and, ultimately, found that the remaining
Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Specifically, this Court found that the Defendants were
entitled to qualified immunity as to the claims against them
in their individual capacities and that the claims against
them in their official capacities, as well as the claims
against the City of Louisa and its Police Department, failed
as a matter of law. The Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Judgment entered on September 15, 2017 extinguished
asks this Court to revisit its decision, arguing that
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 52(a)(5) and (6)(b) warrant reconsideration.
(a) Findings and Conclusions.
(1) In General. In an action tried on the facts without a
jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts
specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The
findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after
the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a
memorandum of decision filed by the court.
. . . .
(5) Questioning the Evidentiary Support. A party may later
question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
findings, whether or not the party requested findings,
objected to them, moved to amend them, or moved for partial
(6) Setting Aside the Findings. Findings of fact, whether
based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless
clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due
regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the
(b) Amended or Additional Findings. On a party's motion
filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the
court may amend its findings-or make additional findings-and
may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion ...