Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00108/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00108-10/pdf.json

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

---

Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABDELHAMEAD IBRAHIM, 

ABDULLAH IBRAHIM, NORA 

ELSOKKARY, and HAJAR IBRAHIM,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARK EVANGELHO, and STEVEN 

FERNANDES,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

I. Introduction

Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence, it is my duty to 

instruct you as to the law of the case. 

Each of you has received a copy of these instructions that you may take with you to 

the jury room to consult during your deliberations.

You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as 

indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be. 

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you 

will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether 

you agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, 

opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

evidence before you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so. 

In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some 

and ignore others; they are all important.

II. Burden of Proof

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or affirmative defense by a 

preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the 

claim or affirmative defense is more probably true than not true.

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party 

presented it.

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and 

convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a 

firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim 

or defense are true. This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the 

evidence, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

III. Evidence

A. Evidence You May Consider

The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of: 

(1) the sworn testimony of any witness; 

(2) the exhibits which are received into evidence; and

(3) any facts to which the lawyers have agreed.

B. Things You May Not Consider

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received 

into evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding 

what the facts are. I will list them for you:

(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not 

witnesses. What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other 

times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as 

you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 3

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

them controls.

(2) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to 

their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. 

You should not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on it. 

(3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed 

to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition, sometimes testimony 

and exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I give a limiting instruction, you 

must follow it.

(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is not 

evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.

C. Taking Notes

You may have taken notes during the trial. Whether or not you took notes, you 

should rely on your own memory of the evidence. Notes are only to assist your memory. 

You should not be overly influenced by your notes or those of your fellow jurors.

D. Transcript of Video Recording

You watched some recordings that were received into evidence. During the 

recording, you were given a transcript to help you identify speakers and as a guide to help 

you listen to the recording. However, bear in mind that the recording is the evidence, not 

the transcript. If you heard something different than what appeared in the transcript, what 

you heard is controlling. You will not have a copy of the transcript during your 

deliberations.

E. Stipulations of Fact

The parties have agreed to certain facts that have been read to you. You should 

therefore treat these facts as having been proved.

F. Types of Evidence

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, 

such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. For 

example, direct evidence that it was raining would be a photo showing that it was raining 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 4

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

on a given day. Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you 

could find another fact. For example, circumstantial evidence that it was raining would be 

testimony of a witness who said they believed it was raining, not because they saw the 

rain, but because they saw a person entering the building with a wet umbrella. You should 

consider both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be 

given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight 

to give, if any, to any evidence.

G. Use of Interrogatories of a Party

Evidence was presented to you in the form of answers of one of the parties to 

written interrogatories submitted by the other side. These answers were given in writing 

and under oath, before the actual trial, in response to questions that were submitted in 

writing under established court procedures. You should consider the answers, insofar as 

possible, in the same way as if they were made from the witness stand.

H. Use of Request for Admission of a Party

Before trial, each party has the right to ask another party to admit in writing that 

certain facts are true. If the other party admits those facts, you must accept them as true 

and conclusively proved in this case.

I. The Court’s Ruling on Objections

There are rules of evidence that control what can be received into evidence. When 

a lawyer asks a question or offers an exhibit into evidence and a lawyer on the other side 

thinks that it is not permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer may object. If I 

overruled the objection, the question was answered or the exhibit received. If I sustained

the objection, the question was not answered, and the exhibit cannot be received. 

Whenever I sustained an objection to a question, you must ignore the question and must 

not guess what the answer might have been or what the document might have said. My 

rulings are not intended to influence your decision. Your decisions must be based entirely 

on the testimony and documents received into evidence.

Sometimes I ordered that evidence be stricken from the record and that you 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 4 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 5

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

disregard or ignore the evidence. That means that when you are deciding the case, you 

must not consider the evidence that I told you to disregard. 

J. Bench Conferences and Recesses

From time to time during the trial, it may have been necessary for me to talk with 

the attorneys out of the hearing of the jury. The purpose of these conferences was not to 

keep relevant information from you, but to decide how certain evidence is to be treated 

under the rules of evidence and to avoid confusion and error.

I may not have always granted an attorney’s request for a conference. Do not 

consider my granting or denying a request for a conference as any indication of my 

opinion of the case or of what your verdict should be.

IV. Witnesses

A. Evaluation of Witness Testimony

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to 

believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or 

part of it, or none of it. 

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:

(1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things 

testified to;

(2) the witness’s memory;

(3) the witness’s manner while testifying;

(4) the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice;

(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony;

(6) the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and

(7) any other factors that bear on believability.

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number 

of witnesses who testify about it.

B. Impeachment Evidence

The evidence that a witness lied under oath or gave different or inconsistent 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 5 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 6

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

testimony on a prior occasion may be considered, along with all other evidence, in 

deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how much, if any, weight to give to that 

witness’s testimony.

C. Deposition Testimony

A deposition is the sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial. The witness is

placed under oath to tell the truth and lawyers for each party may ask questions. The 

questions and answers are recorded by written transcript and sometimes video recording. 

When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, the deposition of that person may be used at 

the trial.

You should consider deposition testimony, presented to you in court in lieu of live 

testimony, in the same way as if the witness had been present to testify.

If testimony is read, rather than played back from a recording, do not place any 

significance on the behavior or tone of voice of any person reading the questions or 

answers.

You heard or viewed only a portion, or series of portions, of the depositions taken 

by the parties in this case. Do not make any inferences about the fact that you did not hear 

or see the deposition in its entirety or that what you are heard or saw has been edited.

D. Impeachment Evidence

The evidence that a witness lied under oath on a prior occasion may be considered, 

along with all other evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how 

much weight to give to the testimony of the witness and for no other purpose.

V. Statement of the Claims

I will now instruct you on the law to apply in assessing the facts of this case. 

Plaintiffs bring the following claims: constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

negligence; battery; California civil rights claims; and intentional infliction of emotional 

distress. You should decide the case as to each party separately. Unless otherwise stated, 

the instructions apply to all parties.

If you find for plaintiffs on any of their claims, you must determine each plaintiff’s 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 6 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 7

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

damages. Plaintiffs have the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the 

evidence for compensatory damages and by clear and convincing evidence for state law 

punitive damages. Compensatory damages means the amount of money that will 

reasonably and fairly compensate plaintiffs for any injury you find was caused by one or 

both defendants. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and to deter 

similar acts in the future. 

It is the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of damages. By 

instructing you on damages, I do not mean to suggest for which party your verdict should 

be rendered. 

I will now instruct you on the law you must apply to decide each claim in the case. 

VI. Constitutional Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiffs bring claims under the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides 

that any person or persons who, under color of state law, deprives another of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States shall be 

liable to the injured party.

In order to prevail on their § 1983 claims against defendants, plaintiffs must prove 

each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Defendants acted under color of state law; and

2. the acts of defendants deprived plaintiffs of their particular rights under the 

United States Constitution as explained in later instructions.

A person acts “under color of state law” when the person acts or purports to act in 

the performance of official duties under any state, county, or municipal law, ordinance or 

regulation. The parties have stipulated that the defendants acted under color of state law.

If you find plaintiffs have proved all the elements they are required to prove under 

the following instructions on the alleged constitutional violations, your verdict should be 

for plaintiffs. If, on the other hand, you find that plaintiffs have failed to prove any one or 

more of these elements, your verdict should be for defendants.

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 7 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 8

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

A. Unreasonable Search 

Plaintiffs have the burden to prove that the acts of Deputies Mark Evangelho and 

Steven Fernandes deprived plaintiffs of particular rights under the United States 

Constitution. In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendants deprived them of their rights 

under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by searching their residence.

Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals have the right to be free from 

unreasonable searches of their residences. In order to prove defendants deprived plaintiffs 

of this Fourth Amendment right, plaintiffs must prove the following elements by a 

preponderance of the evidence:

1. Defendants Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes searched the plaintiffs’ 

residence;

2. in conducting the search, Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes acted intentionally; 

and

3. the search was unreasonable.

This claim is brought by all plaintiffs against all defendants.

In general, a search of a person’s residence is unreasonable under the Fourth 

Amendment if the search is not authorized by a search warrant. A “search warrant” is a 

written order signed by a judge that permits a law enforcement officer to search a 

particular person, place, or thing. 

In this case, the parties stipulate that the officers did not have a search warrant. 

Instead, defendants assert two exceptions to the search warrant requirement, which I will 

describe. 

In order to prove the search in this case was unreasonable, plaintiffs must prove by 

a preponderance of the evidence that an exception to the warrant requirement does not 

apply.

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 8 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 9

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. Exigent Circumstances

A search warrant is not required and a search is reasonable if:

1. All of the circumstances known to Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes at the 

time would cause a reasonable person to believe that the entry or the search was 

necessary to prevent physical harm to a person inside the residence, and

2. there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.

2. Emergency Aid

A search warrant is not required and a search is reasonable if:

1. Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes has reasonable grounds to believe that there 

was an emergency at hand and there was an immediate need to protect others 

from serious harm; and

2. there was a reasonable basis to associate the emergency with the area or place 

that was searched.

B. Unreasonable Seizure of a Person — Detention and Arrest

As previously explained, plaintiffs have the burden to prove that the acts of 

Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes deprived plaintiffs of particular rights under the United 

States Constitution. 

Under the Fourth Amendment, a person has the right to be free from an 

unreasonable seizure of his or her person. All plaintiffs allege that they were 

unconstitutionally detained. Abdelhamead and Abdullah Ibrahim alleges that they were 

unconstitutionally arrested. In order to prove that defendants deprived plaintiffs of their 

right to be free from unreasonable seizure, plaintiffs must prove the following additional 

elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. The deputies seized the plaintiff’s person;

2. in seizing the plaintiff’s person, the deputies acted intentionally; and

3. the seizure was unreasonable.

A defendant “seizes” a plaintiff’s person when he restrains the plaintiff’s liberty 

through coercion, physical force or a show of authority. A person’s liberty is restrained 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 9 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 10

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

when, under all of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have felt free to 

ignore the presence of law enforcement officers and to go about his or her business.

In determining whether a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position would have felt 

free to leave, consider all of the circumstances including,

1. the number of officers present;

2. whether weapons were displayed;

3. whether the encounter occurred in a public or nonpublic setting;

4. whether the officer’s manner would imply that compliance would be compelled; 

and

5. whether the officers advise plaintiff that he was free to leave.

1. Reasonable Suspicion Detention

In general, a seizure of a person for an investigatory stop is reasonable if, under all 

of the circumstances known to the officer at the time:

1. The officer had a reasonable suspicion that the person seized was engaged in

criminal activity; and

2. the length and scope of the seizure was reasonable.

In order to prove the seizure in this case was unreasonable, the plaintiff must prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him 

or her or that the length or scope of the stop was excessive.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the 

plaintiff of criminal activity. The officer is permitted to draw on his own experience and 

specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative 

information available to him.

In determining whether the length or scope of the seizure was reasonable, consider 

all of the circumstances, including:

1. the intrusiveness of the stop, such as the methods the police used, the restriction on 

the plaintiff’s liberty, and the length of the stop; and

2. whether the methods used were reasonable under the circumstances; 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 10 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 11

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

2. Probable Cause Arrest

In general, the seizure of a person by arrest without a warrant is reasonable if the 

arresting officers had probable cause to believe the plaintiff has committed or was 

committing a crime. 

In order to prove the seizure in this case was unreasonable, Abdelhamead and 

Adbullah Ibrahim must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were arrested 

without probable cause.

“Probable cause” exists when, under all of the circumstances known to the officers 

at the time, an objectively reasonable police officer would conclude that there is a fair 

probability that the plaintiff has committed or was committing a crime. 

Although the facts known to the officer are relevant to your inquiry, the officer’s 

intent or motive is not relevant to your inquiry.

Under California law, it is a crime to resist, delay, or obstruct officers in the 

discharge of their duties.

C. Unreasonable Seizure of a Person — Excessive Force

In general, a seizure of a person is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a 

police officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest. Thus, in order to prove an 

unreasonable seizure in this case, plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 

that defendants used excessive force during the detention, search, and arrest.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may only use such force as is 

“objectively reasonable” under all of the circumstances. You must judge the 

reasonableness of a particular use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on 

the scene and not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. An officer’s intent or motive is not 

relevant to your inquiry.

All plaintiffs allege that Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes used excessive force on 

them. You must assess the force used on each individual plaintiff.

In determining whether the officers used excessive force in this case, consider all of 

the circumstances known to the officers on the scene, including:

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 11 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 12

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. the severity of the crime or other circumstances to which the officers were 

responding;

2. whether plaintiffs posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or to 

others;

3. whether plaintiffs were actively resisting arrest;

4. the amount of time and any changing circumstances during which the officers 

had to determine the type and amount of force that appeared to be necessary;

5. the type and amount of force used;

6. the availability of alternative methods to subdue plaintiffs; 

7. the parties relative culpability, i.e., which party created the dangerous situation, 

and which party is more innocent;

8. whether it was practical for the officers to give warning of the imminent use of 

force and whether such warning was given;

9. whether the officers were responding to a domestic violence disturbance; and 

10.whether a reasonable officer would have or should have accurately perceived a 

mistaken fact.

D. Fourth Amendment — Unreasonable Seizure of Property

As previously explained, plaintiffs have the burden to prove that the act of the 

defendants deprived plaintiffs of particular rights under the United States Constitution. In 

this case, plaintiff Nora Elsokkary alleges that defendant Deputy Evangelho deprived her 

of her Fourth Amendment right when Deputy Evangelho allegedly removed a knife from 

plaintiff’s home and did not return it.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a person has the right to be free from an 

unreasonable seizure of his or her property. Plaintiff must prove the following additional 

elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Deputy Evangelho seized the plaintiff’s property;

2. in seizing the plaintiff’s property, Deputy Evangelho acted intentionally; and

3. the seizure was unreasonable.

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 12 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 13

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

A person “seizes” the property of the plaintiff when the person takes possession of 

or controls the property in a manner that meaningfully interferes with the plaintiff’s right 

to possess the property.

A person acts “intentionally” when the person acts with a conscious objective to 

engage in particular conduct. Thus, plaintiff must prove defendant meant to engage in the 

acts that caused a seizure of the plaintiff’s property. Although plaintiff does not need to 

prove defendants intended to violate the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, it is not 

enough if plaintiffs only prove the defendants acted negligently, accidentally or 

inadvertently in conducting the search.

E. First Amendment — Freedom to Record

Plaintiffs Abdelhamead, Abdullah, and Hajar Ibrahim allege that defendants 

violated their First Amendment right to record the officers’ conduct. In order for plaintiffs 

to recover for the alleged violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech and 

expression, plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following:

1. Defendants acted under color of law;

2. plaintiffs engaged in speech and freedom of expression protected under the First 

Amendment in attempting to record;

3. defendants took action against plaintiffs; and

4. plaintiffs’ protected speech or conduct was a substantial motivating factor in the 

defendants’ action.

If defendants prove that it is more likely true than not true that they would have 

taken the same action against plaintiffs even if they had not engaged in activities protected 

under the First Amendment, then plaintiffs cannot recover on this claim.

A substantial motivating factor is a significant factor.

Filming or videotaping of law enforcement officers engaged in their duties in a 

public place or questioning a law enforcement officer’s actions are activities protected by 

the First Amendment so long as the filming or questioning does not unreasonably interfere 

with the officer’s performance of his duties.

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 13 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 14

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

VII. Negligence

All plaintiffs claim that they were harmed by the deputies’ negligence. Each 

plaintiff must prove negligence as to each deputy. To establish the claim, the plaintiff 

must prove all of the following:

1. that Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes were negligent;

2. that plaintiff was harmed; and

3. that Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes’ negligence was a substantial factor in 

causing plaintiff’s harm.

Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to 

others. A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. 

A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person 

would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person 

would do in the same situation.

You must decide how a reasonably careful person would have acted in the deputies’ 

situation.

A. Comparative Fault

Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes claim that the plaintiff’s own negligence 

contributed to their harm. To succeed on this claim, the deputies must prove both of the 

following by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. that plaintiff was negligent; and

2. that plaintiff’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing their harm.

If the deputies prove the above, the plaintiff’s damages are reduced by your 

determination of the percentage of the plaintiff’s responsibility. I will calculate the actual 

reduction.

B. Alternative Cause

You may decide that more than one of the defendants was negligent, but that the 

negligence of only one of them could have actually caused a plaintiff’s harm. If you 

cannot decide which defendant caused a plaintiff’s harm, you must decide that each 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 14 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 15

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

defendant is responsible for the harm.

However, if a defendant proves that he did not cause a plaintiff’s harm, then you 

must conclude that defendant is not responsible.

VIII. Battery

Plaintiffs claim that Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes harmed them by using 

unreasonable force to overcome their resistance and arrest them. You must decide this 

claim as to each plaintiff’s interaction with each defendant.

To establish this claim, plaintiffs must prove all of the following:

1. that the deputies intentionally touched plaintiffs or caused plaintiffs to be 

touched;

2. that the deputies used unreasonable force to overcome plaintiffs’ resistance and 

arrest them;

3. that plaintiffs did not consent to the use of that force;

4. that plaintiffs were harmed;

5. and that the deputies’ use of unreasonable force was a substantial factor in 

causing plaintiffs’ harm.

Deputies may use reasonable force to arrest or detain a person when they have 

reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime. Even if the deputies are 

mistaken, a person being arrested or detained has a duty not to use force to resist the 

deputies unless the deputies are using unreasonable force.

In deciding whether Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes used unreasonable force, 

you must determine the amount of force that would have appeared reasonable to a deputy 

in Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes’ positions under the same or similar circumstances. 

You should consider, among other factors, the following:

1. the seriousness of the crime at issue;

2. whether plaintiffs reasonably appeared to pose an immediate threat to the safety 

of the deputies or others; and

3. whether plaintiffs were actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest.

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 15 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 16

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

A deputy who makes or attempts to make an arrest is not required to retreat or cease 

from his efforts because of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being 

arrested.

IX. California Civil Rights 

Plaintiffs bring two claims under the California Civil Code for a violation of their 

state law civil rights.

A. Unruh Civil Rights Act

First, plaintiffs claim that the deputies denied them full and equal advantages and 

privileges because of their religion and ethnicity. To establish this claim, plaintiffs must 

prove all of the following:

1. that each or both deputies denied and discriminated or made a distinction that 

denied full and equal advantages to plaintiffs;

2. that a substantial motivating reason for the deputies’ conduct was their 

perception of plaintiffs’ religion, ancestry, or national origin;

3. that plaintiffs were harmed; and

4. that the deputies’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs’ 

harm.

For this claim, if you decide that plaintiffs have proven their claim against 

defendants, you may award damages based on the criteria that I will instruct you on 

shortly. In addition, you may award plaintiffs up to three times the amount of their actual 

damages as a penalty against defendants.

B. Ralph Act

Second, all plaintiffs claim that defendants committed an act of violence, or a threat 

of violence, against them because of their religion and/or ethnicity. To establish this claim, 

plaintiffs must prove all of the following:

1. that defendants committed a violent act, or threatened a violent act, against 

plaintiffs;

2. that a reasonable person in plaintiffs’ position would have believed that

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 16 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 17

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

defendants would carry out their threat and would have been intimidated by 

defendants’ conduct;

3. that a substantial motivating reason for defendants’ conduct was their perception 

of plaintiffs’ religion and or ethnicity;

4. that plaintiffs were harmed; and

5. that defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ harm.

For this claim, if you decide that plaintiffs have proven their claim against 

defendants, you must award damages based on the criteria that I will instruct you on 

shortly. In addition, you must award a civil penalty of $25,000.

X. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

All plaintiffs claim that the deputies’ conduct caused them to suffer severe 

emotional distress. To establish this claim, each plaintiff must prove all of the following:

1. that the deputies’ conduct was outrageous;

2. that one or both deputies intended to cause plaintiff emotional distress;

3. that plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and

4. that one or both deputies’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s 

severe emotional distress.

A. Outrageous Conduct

“Outrageous conduct” is conduct so extreme that it goes beyond all public bounds 

of decency. Conduct is outrageous if a reasonable person would regard the conduct as 

intolerable in a civilized community. Outrageous conduct does not include trivialities such 

as indignities, annoyances, hurt feelings, or bad manners that a reasonable person is 

expected to endure.

In deciding whether the deputies’ conduct was outrageous, you may consider, 

among other factors, the following:

1. whether either or both deputies abused a position of authority or a relationship 

that gave them real or apparent power to affect the plaintiff’s interests;

2. whether either or both deputies knew that the plaintiff was particularly 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 17 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 18

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

vulnerable to emotional distress; and

3. whether either or both deputies knew that their conduct would likely result in 

harm due to mental distress.

B. Reckless Disregard

Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes acted with reckless disregard in causing the 

plaintiff’s emotional distress if:

1. either or both deputies knew that emotional distress would probably result from 

their conduct; or

2. either or both deputies gave little or no thought to the probable effects of their 

conduct.

C. Severe Emotional Distress

Emotional distress includes suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, 

anxiety, shock, humiliation, and shame.

“Severe emotional distress” is not mild or brief; it must be so substantial or long 

lasting that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to bear it. The 

plaintiff is not required to prove physical injury to recover damages for severe emotional 

distress.

XI. Deputies’ Affirmative Defense

Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes claim that they are not responsible for any 

plaintiff’s harm, if any, because the deputies’ conduct was permissible. To succeed, the 

deputies must prove all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. that the deputies were exercising their legal right to investigate a potential crime, 

to use appropriate force to overcome resistance and to make an arrest;

2. that the deputies’ conduct was lawful and consistent with community standards; 

and

3. that the deputies had a good-faith belief that they had a legal right to engage in 

the conduct.

If you find all of the above, then Deputies Evangelho and Fernandes’ conduct was 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 18 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 19

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

permissible. 

XII. Damages

A. Compensatory Damages

As I previously mentioned, if you find for the plaintiffs on any of their claims, you 

must determine each plaintiff’s damages as to each defendant. You should consider the 

following:

1. the nature and extent of any injuries;

2. any mental, physical, emotional pain and suffering experienced;

3. the amount of any necessary medical care or services incurred.

It is for you to determine what damages, if any, have been proved.

Your award must be based upon evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork, or 

conjecture.

B. Mitigation

The plaintiff has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. To mitigate 

means to avoid or reduce damages. 

The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages; and

2. the amount by which damages would have been mitigated.

C. Nominal Damages

The constitutional claims in this case authorize an award of nominal damages. If 

you find for plaintiffs, but you find that plaintiffs have failed to prove damages as defined 

in these instructions, you must award nominal damages for the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Nominal damages may not exceed one dollar.

D. Punitive Damages

If you find for the plaintiff, you may, but are not required to, find punitive damages

are appropriate. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and to deter 

similar acts in the future. Punitive damages may not be awarded to compensate a plaintiff.

The plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence for 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 19 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 20

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

plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and clear and convincing evidence for California 

state law claims that punitive damages should be awarded.

You may find punitive damages are appropriate only if you find that the defendant’s 

conduct that harmed the plaintiff was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of the 

plaintiff’s rights. Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is 

for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff. Conduct is in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s 

rights if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to the plaintiff’s safety 

or rights, or if the defendant acts in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate 

the plaintiff’s rights under federal law. An act or omission is oppressive if the defendant 

injures or damages or otherwise violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary 

harshness or severity, such as by misusing or abusing authority or power or by taking 

advantage of some weakness or disability or misfortune of the plaintiff.

XIII. Conduct of the Jury During Deliberations

A. Use of Electronic Technology To Conduct Research on or Communicate 

About A Case

During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any 

information to anyone by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic 

device or media, such as the telephone, a cell phone, smart phone, iPhone, Blackberry or 

computer, the Internet, any Internet service, any text or instant messaging service, any 

Internet chat room, blog, or website such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube or 

Twitter, to communicate to anyone any information about this case or to conduct any 

research about this case until I accept your verdict. In other words, you cannot talk to 

anyone on the phone, correspond with anyone, or electronically communicate with anyone 

about this case. You can only discuss the case in the jury room with your fellow jurors 

during deliberations. I expect you will inform me as soon as you become aware of another 

juror’s violation of these instructions.

You may not use these electronic means to investigate or communicate about the 

case because it is important that you decide this case based solely on the evidence 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 20 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 21

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

presented in this courtroom. Information on the internet or available through social media 

might be wrong, incomplete, or inaccurate. You are only permitted to discuss the case 

with your fellow jurors during deliberations because they have seen and heard the same 

evidence you have. In our judicial system, it is important that you are not influenced by 

anything or anyone outside of this courtroom. Otherwise, your decision may be based on 

information known only by you and not your fellow jurors or the parties in the case. This 

would unfairly and adversely impact the judicial process.

You will be given a computer that has access only to files containing admitted 

evidence in this case. You should not use the computer for any other purpose.

B. Duty to Deliberate

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as 

your presiding juror. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you 

here in court.

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you can 

do so. Your verdict must be unanimous.

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you 

have considered all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to 

the views of your fellow jurors.

Do not hesitate to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you 

should. Do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right.

It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if 

each of you can do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not change 

an honest belief about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict.

C. Conduct of the Jury

Because you must base your verdict only on the evidence received in the case and 

on these instructions, I remind you that you must not be exposed to any other information 

about the case or to the issues it involves. Except for discussing the case with your fellow 

jurors during your deliberations:

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 21 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 22

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

Do not communicate with anyone in any way and do not let anyone else 

communicate with you in any way about the merits of the case or anything to do with it. 

This includes discussing the case (including the parties, evidence, witnesses or the 

lawyers) in person, in writing, by phone or electronic means, via email, text messaging, 

social media or any Internet chat room, blog, website or other feature. This applies to 

communicating with your family members, your employer, the media or press, and the 

people involved in the trial. If you are asked or approached in any way about your jury 

service or anything about this case, you must respond that you have been ordered not to 

discuss the matter and to report the contact to the court.

Do not read, watch, or listen to any news or media accounts or commentary about 

the case or anything to do with it (including the parties, evidence, witnesses or the 

lawyers); do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching the Internet or 

using other reference materials; and do not make any investigation or in any other way try 

to learn about the case on your own.

The law requires these restrictions to ensure the parties have a fair trial based on the 

same evidence that each party has had an opportunity to address. A juror who violates 

these restrictions jeopardizes the fairness of these proceedings. If any juror is exposed to 

any outside information, please notify the court immediately.

D. Communication with the Court

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you 

may send a note through the Courtroom Deputy, signed by your presiding juror or by one 

or more members of the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate 

with me except by a signed writing; I will communicate with any member of the jury on 

anything concerning the case only in writing, or here in open court. If you send out a 

question, I will consult with the parties before answering it, which may take some time. 

You are not to conclude from any time delays that the question is difficult to answer and 

you are not to speculate that the time delay gives any indication as to what the answer is.

You may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any question. 

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 22 of 23
Case No. 15-cv-00108 NC 23

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

Remember that you are not to tell anyone—including me—how the jury stands, 

numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been 

discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the court.

E. Return of Verdict

A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have reached unanimous 

agreement on a verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given to you, 

sign and date it, and advise the court that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00108-NC Document 112 Filed 11/10/16 Page 23 of 23