Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03204/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03204-16/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF RICARDO ESCOBEDO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-03204 CRB

ORDER RE: VERDICT FORM 

AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Having considered the objections of counsel, and with the benefit of oral argument, 

the Court determines that the verdict form and instructions shall be submitted to the jury as

presented in the attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

As to the standard of liability applicable to a supervising officer, the Court finds that

the attached jury instructions fairly and accurately communicate the law as set forth by the

Ninth Circuit in Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 418 (9th Cir. 2003), Cunningham

v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000), and Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d

630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court has modified the jury instructions and the verdict form

to reflect the fact that this standard of supervisor liability applies to both Sergeant Steve

Switzer and Sergeant Keith Harper.

As to the question of the standard of liability applicable to individual officers who

were involved in the struggle to subdue Ricardo Escobedo, the Court finds that the attached

Case 3:03-cv-03204-CRB Document 286 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the 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

2

jury instructions fairly and accurately communicate the law as set forth by the Ninth Circuit

in Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996), and Boyd v. Benton County, 374

F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2004), both of which are based on the standard of liability articulated

by the Fifth Circuit in Melear v. Spears, 862 F.2d 1177 (5th Cir.1989). The principle of law

to be gleaned from these cases is that an officer’s mere presence at the scene of a

constitutional violation is not sufficient to impose liability, but that liability may be imposed

even if his actions did not independently constitute a unconstitutional act. In the Court’s

view, Plaintiff’s proposed instruction comes too close to the “team effort” standard of

liability that the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly rejected. See Chuman, 76 F.3d at 294-95;

Boyd, 374 F.3d at 780. Thus, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court has employed the

terms “integral participant” and “full, active participant,” which are the operative terms used

by the Ninth Circuit in both Chuman and Boyd, on which Plaintiff ostensibly relies. See,

e.g., White v. Ford Motor Co., 312 F.3d 998, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We generally review the

particular formulation of civil jury instructions for abuse of discretion.”).

As for the question of punitive damages, the Court finds that its jury instructions were

correct as originally proposed. The Ninth Circuit has squarely rejected the argument

presented by Defendants that it would be proper to omit the work “oppressive” in connection

with the standard for punitive damages in an excessive force case. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d

800, 814 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We hold the district court prejudicially erred in refusing to instruct

the jury that punitive damages could be awarded if it found that [the officer’s] acts that

caused [the plaintiff’s] damages were oppressively done.”).

Finally, the Court declines to submit to the jury Defendants’ proposed instructions on

the various provisions of California law. These sections--Penal Code §§ 148, 834a, 835a--

describe the various duties and obligations applicable under state law. The only question

presented in this trial is whether, under federal constitutional standards, the defendants can

be held liable for the use of excessive force. Defendants’ proposed instructions regarding

state law would either be cumulative, insofar as they repeat items already contained within

the Ninth Circuit’s model instruction, or misleading, insofar as they deviate from that model.

Case 3:03-cv-03204-CRB Document 286 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the 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

G:\CRBALL\2003\3204\order re final instructions.wpd 3

The Court has considered the other objections raised by the parties to the proposed

jury instructions and verdict form and, for the reasons stated on the record, finds them to be

without merit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03204-CRB Document 286 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 3