Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04516/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04516-9/pdf.json

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

---

3 

Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions (No. 3:13-cv-04516-LB) 

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 

1.2 CLAIMS AND DEFENSES 

To help you follow the evidence, I will give you a brief summary of the positions of the parties 

at trial. This is a civil lawsuit. On October 5, 2012, Mohammed Shah was shot and killed by City 

of Hayward Police Officer Allen Neula while Mr. Shah was sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked 

Honda that Officer Neula’s onboard computer indicated was a reported stolen car. The plaintiffs 

are the estate of Mohammed Shaw, the mother of Mohammad Shah (Janifer Shah), and the minor 

son of Mr. Shah (C.E.W. through his guardian ad litem Valerie Weaver). The plaintiffs bring four 

claims against Allen Neula. 

One, the estate of Mohammed Shaw (through his son C.E.W.) claims that when Allen Neula 

shot Mohammed Shah, he used excessive force, which violated Mohammed Shah’s rights under 

the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. 

Two, C.E.W. and Janifer Shah claim that when Allen Neula shot Mohammed Shah, he 

deprived them of their substantive-due-process interest in a familial relationship under the 

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. 

Three, the estate of Mohammed Shaw (through his son C.E.W.) claims that when Allen Neula 

shot Mohammed Shah, he negligently caused the wrongful death of Mohammed Shah. 

Four, the estate of Mohammed Shaw (through his son C.E.W.) claims that Allen Neula used 

threats, intimidation, and coercion to interfere with Mohammed Shah’s right to be free from 

excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the laws of the state of California and 

therefore violated California’s Bane Act. 

The plaintiffs have the burden of proving these claims. 

The defendant denies these claims and contends that Allen Neula’s use of force was 

objectively reasonable under the circumstances, his actions were not negligent, and he did not 

interfere with the exercise of rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion. 

 

Case 3:13-cv-04516-LB Document 106 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 1