Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01095/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01095-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAJ CHRISTOPHER GUPTA, )

) 2:00-cv-1095-GEB-GGH-P

Plaintiff, )

) RESPONSE TO

v. ) DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE RE

) QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

C.A. TERHUNE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants’ “Notice of Withdrawal of Issue of Qualified

Immunity From Jury” filed April 25, 2006, fails to show awareness of

the Ninth Circuit decision in Acosta v. City and County of San

Francisco, 83 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 1996), which states:

“Regardless of who makes the ultimate determination as to qualified

immunity, the jury, not the judge, must decide the disputed

‘foundational’ or ‘historical’ facts that underlie the determination.” 

Since no trial document has been proposed for the jury to decide

factual issues applicable to the defense, it appears that each

Defendant is on the brink of having the defense deemed waived.

Dated: May 4, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:00-cv-01095-GEB-GGH Document 198 Filed 05/04/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case 2:00-cv-01095-GEB-GGH Document 198 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 2