Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04947/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04947-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER DICKSON,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 04-4947 PJH 

v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

JEFFREY TAYLOR, et al.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this final pretrial

order is hereby entered and shall control the course of the trial unless modified by a

subsequent order. The pretrial statement of the parties is incorporated herein except as

modified by the court's ruling on the pretrial motions and objections.

I. CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

As there has been no motion practice in this case, the court and counsel discussed

at length the claims and some of the defenses that will be tried with the following results:

a. Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses defendants Andrew Smith and Erik

Richardson.

b. Plaintiff’s first cause of action asserted against all defendants, is for a

violation of his Fourth Amendment rights brought under 42 United States

Code § 1983. The specific claims remaining for trial are arrest without

probable cause and use of excessive force as to all defendants and a Monell

claim for failure to train and supervise as to the County and Sheriff’s

Department. Plaintiff may not pursue the due process claim based on the

denial of a “fair” trial in the absence of authority that the federal and state

constitutions guarantee a “fair” trial as opposed to simply a “trial,” which

plaintiff received, or authority that extends the “criminal convictions obtained

by false testimony” line of cases to civil rather than criminal actions.

c. Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses his second cause of action.

Case 4:04-cv-04947-PJH Document 78 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 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

2

d. Plaintiff’s third cause of action asserts conspiracy to violate and violation of

the Constitution and various laws of the state of California by all defendants. 

Plaintiff withdraws his conspiracy allegation and voluntarily dismisses

defendants Flores and North from this cause of action. Plaintiff may not

pursue this claim under Article I, § 16 and 17 of the California Constitution in

the absence of authority that they are self-executing. As there has been no

objection of defendants, plaintiff may pursue claims under Article I, § 13 and

California Civil Code sections, 43, 52 and 1708. To the extent that this claim

is also based on the allegation that defendants testified falsely at the criminal

trial, the court’s ruling is the same as in 1(b) above. Notwithstanding the lack

of objection by defendants to plaintiff’s assertion that the public entities are

responsible under a respondeat superior theory for the constitutional and

statutory violations of the individual defendants, the parties are ordered to

provide authority for the notion that respondeat superior liability extends

beyond torts committed by employees in conjunction with their proposed jury

instruction(s) on this issue.

e. Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity in their trial brief,

but did not and have not moved pre-trial for a determination of whether they

enjoy said defense. Accordingly, although the court will make the ultimate

decision whether the defense applies, that determination will be made postverdict. The jury will be asked whether defendants acted reasonably or

whether they violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by arresting him without

probable cause and by using excessive force. Based upon the responses the

court will determine whether it would have been clear to a reasonable officer

that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.

II. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence regarding plaintiff’s acquittal in the

underlying criminal case has been resolved by stipulation of the parties that plaintiff may 

Case 4:04-cv-04947-PJH Document 78 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 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

3

present evidence of attorneys fees incurred in his defense of the criminal charges as an

element of damages in this case, and thus, the fact that he was prosecuted and tried for the

underlying charges will be admitted, for context only, however, the fact of his acquittal will

not be admitted in evidence. 

III. WITNESSES

Police practices experts will not be permitted to usurp the fact-finding function of the

jury by testifying as to whether there was or was not probable cause or whether the force

used was or was not excessive.

IV. EXHIBITS

The transcript of plaintiff’s criminal jury trial may be used for impeachment purposes,

but not on the issue of liability.

V. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

As stated at the conference, many of the jointly proffered instructions are redundant

or unnecessary. Additionally, plaintiff’s proffered separate instructions are either

unwarranted or misstate the law, and will not be given. The parties shall meet and confer

and submit a revised set of jointly prepared instructions no later than 4:00 p.m. on

September 5, 2006. With the exception of the instructions on respondeat superior for

which the court has requested authority, all other instructions shall be submitted on a

separate sheet of paper without reference to authority or the parties.

VI. VERDICT FORMS

The verdict forms need to be revised in light of the court’s ruling on pretrial motions

and objections and plaintiff’s voluntary dismissals. A revised jointly prepared form of

verdict shall be submitted no later than 4:00 p.m. on September 5, 2006.

VII. TRIAL SCHEDULE AND TIME LIMITS

Trial shall commence on September 11, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. We will be in session

everyday except Wednesdays, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Each side will be permitted 12

hours for opening statements, direct and cross examination. Closing arguments will not be 

Case 4:04-cv-04947-PJH Document 78 Filed 08/25/06 Page 3 of 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

4

included in the allotment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2006 ________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04947-PJH Document 78 Filed 08/25/06 Page 4 of 4