Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05434/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05434-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TION ALONZO HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSHUA ARNOLD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-05434-TEH 

ORDER EXPLAINING REASONING 

FOR OMITTING QUALIFIED 

IMMUNITY INSTRUCTION

Both parties proposed separate jury instructions on qualified immunity. However, 

the Court concludes that no qualified immunity instruction is appropriate in this case, 

because a finding for Plaintiff on the first two elements of his excessive force claim would 

preclude a finding for Defendants on their qualified immunity defense. 

It is clearly established law that “the Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth 

Amendment] protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to 

punishment.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989). It is also clearly 

established law that “the due process rights of a [pretrial detainee] are at least as great as 

the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.” City of Revere v. 

Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983); see also Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 

998 (9th Cir. 2007), vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1256 (2009). And, it is clearly 

established law that applying force in the prison context “maliciously and sadistically for 

the very purpose of causing harm” constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation. Whitley v. 

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). Applying these principles, the Court concludes that 

every reasonable Sheriff’s deputy would know that it was a violation of Plaintiff’s rights to 

use excessive force against him with the “purpose . . . to cause harm unrelated to a 

legitimate law enforcement objective.” Joint Proposed Particular Rights Instruction, Ex. A 

to Oldfather Decl. (Docket No. 192-1). 

Case 3:09-cv-05434-TEH Document 211 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Defendants’ cited cases do not persuade the Court otherwise. In both Marquez v. 

Gutierrez and Jeffers v. Gomez, there were mere allegations of officer malice, not jury 

findings, such as would be the case here if the jury finds for Plaintiff on the second 

element of the Particular Rights Instruction. See Marquez, 322 F.3d 689, 693 (9th Cir. 

2003); Jeffers, 267 F.3d 895, 911-12 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, Defendants’ out-of-circuit 

cases regarding tight handcuffing in the Fourth Amendment context do not convince the 

Court that Defendants could be entitled to qualified immunity here, if the jury finds that 

such handcuffing was done with the intent to cause harm unrelated to a legitimate law 

enforcement objective. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/15/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05434-TEH Document 211 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 2