Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06700/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06700-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY B. MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN PARSONS,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06700-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S REQUEST 

FOR CLARIFICATION RE: QUALIFIED

IMMUNITY AT TRIAL

(Doc. 174.)

Plaintiff Gary B. Meeks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner in this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 15, 2009, Defendant John Parsons (“Defendant”) filed a

supplement to his pretrial statement requesting clarification of the Court’s order denying his

motion for reconsideration (Doc. 140) as to whether he may raise the defense of qualified

immunity at the trial of this action. An order issued confirming that Defendant had not waived

the qualified immunity defense and that “Defendant may raise qualified immunity as a defense at

the trial of this action” (Doc. 142). On January 29, 2010 a hearing was held on the parties’

motions in limine, wherein qualified immunity was briefly discussed. On February 3, 2010,

Defendant filed a request for clarification inquiring “whether [Defendant] may raise qualified

immunity as a defense at trial and seek the jury’s verdict on factual issues relevant to Defendant’s

entitlement to qualified immunity as a matter of law, which the Court will ultimately decide, or

whether qualified immunity may only be raised at trial in a motion under Rule 50 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Doc. 174.) 

As indicated in the prior ruling on this issue, the affirmative defense of qualified

1

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 191 Filed 02/08/10 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

immunity presents a legal issue for determination by the Court only subsequent to any resolution

of the factual conflicts in Plaintiff’s favor by the jury. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50; Tortu v. Las Vegas

Metro Police Dep’t. 556 F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Defendant has preserved and may raise qualified immunity as a defense at the trial of this

action. As a practical matter, subsequent to the presentation of evidence and subject to Court

approval, Defendant may request, in the verdict form, factual findings by the jury on specific

facts that go to the issue of qualified immunity. Subsequent to any such factual findings by the

jury, and upon proper motion, the Court will rule on the legal issues presented by the qualified

immunity defense as a matter of law. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).) In the event that such ruling is not

in Defendant’s favor, Defendant is not precluded from filing subsequent motion(s) as allowed by

the rules of court, civil procedure, appellate procedure, and the like. (E.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b);

see also Tortu, 556 F.3d 1075; Pearson v. Callahan, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 808 (2009).) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 191 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 2