Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03062/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03062-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-03062 TEH

ORDER

The Court rules on the Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s proposed jury instructions as

follows:

1. Instruction No. 2:

The typographical error will be corrected.

2. Instruction No. 21:

Plaintiff’s proposed alternative instructions deviates in substance from the Ninth Circuit Model

Jury instruction and is rejected. The Court will include the additional language regarding intent

requested by the Plaintiff yesterday. The Court will incorporate the language clarifying that the

Plaintiff’s three theories are alternative theories. The new Instruction No. 21 is attached.

Case 3:04-cv-03062-TEH Document 112 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 4
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

3. Instruction No. 22:

As the Court indicated yesterday, this instruction is a correct statement of the law and will

remain in as counsel have not stipulated to this issue.

4. Instruction No. 24:

The typographical error will be corrected.

5. Instruction No. 31:

The requested additional language is not pertinent to the elements required to prove battery

and could lead to jury confusion. Counsel may of course still make this argument to the jury.

6. Instruction No. 36

Pursuant to a note provided to the Court this morning, counsel have agreed that both individual

defendants were acting in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the incident. 

Instruction No. 36 will be amended to reflect this stipulation.

7. Instruction No. 37:

Given Plaintiff’s waiver of his right to recover lost wages, paragraph number 3 on the second

page of this instruction is deleted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11-23-05 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03062-TEH Document 112 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

INSTRUCTION NO. 21

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS

THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING, BY A

PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS WITH

RESPECT TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS:

FIRST, THAT THE DEFENDANTS’ ACTS OR OMISSIONS WERE

INTENTIONAL, I.E. THAT DEFENDANTS INTENDED THE NATURAL

CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. IF YOU FIND THE OFFICERS WERE

MERELY NEGLIGENT IN THEIR DUTIES, YOU MAY NOT FIND THEM LIABLE

ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM THAT THEY VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS.

SECOND, THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTED UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.

IN THIS CASE,

THIRD, THAT THE DEFENDANTS’ ACTS OR OMISSIONS WERE A

SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN CAUSING THE DEPRIVATION OF ONE OR MORE

OF PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

IN THIS CASE, THE PLAINTIFF ASSERTS 3 SEPARATE,

ALTERNATIVE CLAIMS THAT DEFENDANTS DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF HIS

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:

Case 3:04-cv-03062-TEH Document 112 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

1. FIRST, THAT DEFENDANTS MATT MCGIFFERT AND/OR BRETT

ESTRADA SUBJECTED PLAINTIFF TO AN UNREASONABLE SEIZURE IN

VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT;

2. SECOND, THAT DEFENDANT MATT MCGIFFERT USED EXCESSIVE

FORCE AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT;

AND

3. THIRD, THAT DEFENDANTS MATT MCGIFFERT AND/OR BRETT

ESTRADA PLACED THE PLAINTIFF IN PERIL WITH DELIBERATE

INDIFFERENCE TO HIS SAFETY IN VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

I WILL EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN BY UNREASONABLE SEIZURE,

EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE IN A MOMENT.

IF YOU FIND THAT PLAINTIFF HAS PROVEN THAT DEFENDANTS

MCGIFFERT AND/OR ESTRADA VIOLATED THE PLAINTIFF’S

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER ANY OF HIS THREE ALTERNATIVE

THEORIES OF LIABILITY, AND SATISFIES THE FIRST TWO ELEMENTS

ABOVE, THEN YOUR VERDICT MUST BE FOR THE PLAINTIFF WITH

RESPECT TO EACH SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM. 

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU FIND THAT PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED

TO PROVE THAT DEFENDANTS MCGIFFERT AND/OR ESTRADA VIOLATED

THE PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THEN YOUR VERDICT MUST

BE FOR THE DEFENDANTS ON THESE CLAIMS.

Case 3:04-cv-03062-TEH Document 112 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 4