Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02299/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02299-50/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REX CHAPPELL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

D. MCCARGAR, D. HOFFMAN, M.

MARTEL, C. PLILER, and D. HAMAD,

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:02-cv-02299-GEB-KJM

TENTATIVE RULING ON THREE

JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND ORDER

REJECTING DEFENDANTS’

CONSTRUCTION OF PRETRIAL

ORDER

The parties have requested modifications to certain of the

proposed jury instructions and verdict form, which were transmitted to

the parties on April 6, 2010. The parties’ respective requests are

discussed separately below. 

A. Proposed Jury Instruction No. 9

On July 9, 2010, Defendants filed “Objections to Court’s

Proposed Jury Instruction No. 9 and Verdict Form,” requesting the court

use an earlier proposed jury instruction no. 9 and verdict form, which

were transmitted to the parties in October of 2009. (Docket No. 161,

3:10-11.) Defendants argue the earlier draft of instruction no. 9 and

verdict form should be used because the current proposed instruction

states the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s Chappell v. Rios appeal

for failing to timely file his appellate brief, when, in fact, it was

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 166 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 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

2

dismissed before the brief was due. (Id., 3:3-6.) Defendants further

argue the proposed instruction improperly inserts a claim outside the

scope of the April 10, 2009 pretrial order, i.e. that Defendants’

alleged denial of photocopying services could form the basis of

Plaintiff’s denial of access claim. (Id., 4:18.) Defendants further

argue: “When [Plaintiff] submitted his proposed jury instructions,

Plaintiff asked the Court to modify Proposed Instruction no. 9 ‘in

accord with the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that

stated that the plaintiff could show a deprivation of his rights by the

confiscation of his brief, the ratification of the confiscation of his

brief, and the denial of photocopying services.’ (CR 109; emphasis in

the original.)” (Id., 3:14-18.) Defendants’ contend: “the Court of

Appeals found that Chappell’s claim that Defendants denied him photocopy

services was part of his retaliation claim, not part of his claim of

denial of access to the courts. The denial of access to the courts claim

[rests] solely on Chappell’s claim that his brief was confiscated.”

(Id., 3:24-27.) Lastly, Defendants argue that “[t]he pretrial order

does not encompass a claim for denial of copy services[;]” therefore,

that claim is not a trial issue unless the final pretrial order is

modified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Defendants contend

only the five disputed factual issues in the pretrial order have been

preserved for trial. (Id., 4:1-18.) 

Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants’ Objections on July

12, 2010. (Docket No. 162.) Plaintiff agrees in his response that

proposed instruction No. 9 should be modified to reflect that the Ninth

Circuit dismissed Chappell v. Rios before Plaintiff’s opening brief was

due. (Id., 2:2-3.) However, Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’

position that the earlier draft of instruction No. 9 should be used.

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 166 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 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

3

(Id., 2:3-5.) Instead, Plaintiff proposed a revised instruction, which

Plaintiff argues “more accurately reflects the Ninth’s Circuit’s ruling,

as well as the conclusion reached by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

that the conduct alleged, if proven to be true, would be deemed a

violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right of access to the courts.”

(Id., 2:5-8.) Plaintiff also requests the proposed verdict form be

revised to conform with his proposed revision of jury instruction no. 9.

(Id., 2:22-24.) Plaintiff also proposed a revision of jury instruction

no. 10. Plaintiff’s proposed revised jury instructions nos. 9 and 10

indicate that he agrees with Defendant that his denial of access to the

courts claim is based solely on his allegation that his brief was

confiscated, and that he contends his retaliation claim includes his

allegation that denial of his request for photocopying services

constituted retaliation.

Defendants’ argument that the pretrial order does not

encompass a claim for denial of photocopying services fails to consider

the “POINTS OF LAW” portion of the pretrial order in which the court

prescribes: “The parties shall brief the elements, standards and burden

of proof of plaintiff’s claims under the applicable constitutional

amendment, statutes and regulations. Trial briefs shall be filed with

this court no later than ten days prior to the date of trial in

accordance with Local Rule 16-285.” In the trial brief Defendants filed

on September 17, 2009, Defendants include the following issues when

discussing Plaintiff’s claim: “Defendants concede that unauthorized

copies of Plaintiff’s document were confiscated because the copy request

had not been properly approved; the document did not meet the copy

procedure criteria; and Plaintiff refused to conform his photocopy

request to what the library was allowed to copy. Had Plaintiff agreed

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 166 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 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

4

to conform his photocopy request to what the library was allowed to

copy, his original document [sic] have then been copied.” (Id., 2:15-

20.) Further, Defendants argue in their trial brief “that Plaintiff

litigated his Rios appeal in spite of any difficulties obtaining

photocopies . . . ” (Id., 4:14-15.) 

Since the “POINTS OF LAW” section of the Pretrial Order

authorized the parties to “brief the elements, standards and burden of

proof of plaintiff’s claims,” that order permitted Defendants to include

as a trial issue the photocopying services issue Defendants included in

their trial brief. See L.R. 285 (Fed.R.Civ.P. 16)(stating that a trial

brief shall include “a short statement of facts; . . . and . . . a

summary of points of law, including reasonably anticipated disputes

concerning admissibility of evidence, legal arguments, and citations of

authority in support thereof.”). Essentially, the Pretrial Order

authorized issues included in a trial brief to be preserved for trial if

the issue concerns an element of plaintiff’s claims. Even in the

situation where a particular issue is “not listed as an issue for trial

in the pretrial order, the issue is a trial issue if construction of the

pretrial order reveals the issue has been preserved for trial. This is

because “[a] pretrial order . . . should be liberally construed to

permit any issues at trial that are ‘embraced within its language.’”

Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 368 (9th Cir.

1985)(citing and quoting United States v. First National Bank of Circle,

652 F.2d 882, 886-87 (9th Cir.1981). Only “particular evidence or

theories which are not at least implicitly included in the order are

barred . . . ” United States v. First Nat. Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d at

886. For the stated reasons, Defendants argument that the photocopying

services issue is not a trial issue is unpersuasive and rejected. 

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 166 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 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

5

Therefore, proposed revision to jury instructions no. 9 is as

follows: “Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant violated his First

Amendment Constitutional right to access the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. To prevail on this claim, Plaintiff must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant confiscated Plaintiff’s

opening appellate brief, or ratified the confiscation of that brief.”

B. Proposed Jury Instruction No. 10

As referenced above, Plaintiff also proposed a revision of

jury instruction no. 10 in his Response to Defendants’ Objections on

July 12, 2010. Plaintiff argues the proposed revision is necessary

because the current proposed instruction includes as an element that the

alleged retaliation must have a “chilling effect,” on Plaintiff’s

exercise of his First Amendment right, which the Ninth Circuit held is

unnecessary in this case, where “‘the retaliation was itself a direct

deprivation of plaintiff’s First Amendment right to access to the

courts. Because plaintiff alleges direct First Amendment violations, we

need not reach the question of whether he alleged a chilling effect

associated with the defendants’ alleged retaliatory actions in his First

Amendment relation claim.’” (Docket No. 162, 2:27-3:3 (quoting the

September 15, 2005 Ninth Circuit Memorandum in Chappell v. McCargar, (9th

Cir. 2005).)

Therefore, proposed revision to jury instructions no. 10 is as

follows: 

Plaintiff also alleges a First Amendment

retaliation claim concerning his pursuit of

grievances against Defendants. Plaintiff has the

right under the First Amendment to be free from

retaliation for filing a prison grievance or

pursuing civil litigation in court.

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 166 Filed 07/14/10 Page 5 of 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

6

To prevail on this claim, Plaintiff must prove

each of the following elements by a preponderance

of the evidence.

First, Plaintiff engaged in activity protected

by the First Amendment;

Second, that the Defendant took some adverse

action against the Plaintiff;

Third, that the Defendant took adverse action

against the Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s

protected activity; and

Fourth, that the action taken by the Defendant

did not reasonably advance a legitimate

correctional goal.

Protected First Amendment activity includes a

prisoner’s right to file a prison grievance and to

pursue civil rights litigation in a court. 

C. Proposed Jury Instruction 13

Plaintiff has also requested modification to proposed jury

instruction no. 13, which concerns punitive damages. Plaintiff argues

further instruction is needed “to assist the jury in making its findings

with respect to punitive damages.” (Docket No. 162, 22-23.) Plaintiff’s

proposed revisions, including an instruction on the clear and convincing

evidence standard are based upon state law and the Judicial Council of

California Civil Jury Instructions. (Id., 24-5.) Plaintiff’s argument

concerning the applicable burden of proof is incorrect, as punitive

damages are proved by a “preponderance of the evidence” in section 1983

cases. (See Comment to Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions No.

5.5 “Punitive Damages” and Adams v. Pinole Point Steel Co., No. C 92-

1962 MHP, 1995 WL 73088, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 1995).) 

Therefore, proposed revision to jury instruction no. 13 is as

follows: 

If you find for the plaintiff, you may, but are not

required to, award punitive damages. The purposes

of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 166 Filed 07/14/10 Page 6 of 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

7

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 that punitive damages

should be awarded, and, if so, the amount of any

such damages.

You may award punitive damages 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 the misuse or abuse of

authority or power or by the taking advantage of

some weakness or disability or misfortune of the

plaintiff.

If you find that punitive damages are appropriate,

you must use reason in setting the amount. Punitive

damages, if any, should be in an amount sufficient

to fulfill their purposes but should not reflect

bias, prejudice or sympathy toward any party. In

considering the amount of any punitive damages,

consider the degree of reprehensibility of the

defendant’s conduct. You may not, however, set the

amount of any punitive damages in order to punish

the defendant for harm to anyone other than the

plaintiff in this case. 

You may impose punitive damages against one or more

of the defendants and not others, and may award

different amounts against different defendants.

Punitive damages may be awarded even if you award

plaintiff only nominal, and not compensatory,

damages.

These proposed changes to the jury instructions and corresponding

changes to the verdict form will be provided to the parties in a revised

set of proposed jury instructions and verdict form. However, for the

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 166 Filed 07/14/10 Page 7 of 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

8

reasons above, Defendants’ construction of the Pretrial Order is

unpersuasive and rejected.

Dated: July 13, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 166 Filed 07/14/10 Page 8 of 8