Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155-20/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. DELEON, C. CARRILLO, and 

A. GUZMAN, 

Defendants.*

No. 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB 

ORDER REGARDING SHACKELING AND 

TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED VERDICT 

FORMS AND WRITTEN QUESTIONS 

CONCERNING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 

 An order finalizing and supplementing the July 21, 2015 

Pretrial Order was filed on January 12, 2016, which stated, in 

relevant part: 

 It is expected that Plaintiff will 

appear at trial seated at counsel table with 

a leg restraint that is shielded from the 

jury’s view by a fabric panel that runs from 

the bottom of counsel table to the floor and 

that Plaintiff will offer his testimony from 

counsel table. Should Plaintiff object to 

either of these provisions, no later than 

February 1, 2016, he shall file written 

objections thereto. Any response to an 

objection shall be filed no later than 

February 3, 2016. 

(Order 3:17-24, ECF No. 91.) No objection to these provisions was 

filed. Therefore, and in light of the nature of the crimes for 

 

*

 The caption has been amended to refer to Defendant Carrillo with the 

correct spelling of his last name. 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 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 

2 

which Plaintiff has been convicted, Plaintiff’s legs shall be 

shackled during trial as indicated, and should Plaintiff elect to 

give testimony, he shall call himself as a witness and give 

testimony from counsel table. Plaintiff’s hands will not be 

shackled during trial. 

Further, attached are the Court’s proposed verdict 

forms, which include the written questions two Defendants 

submitted concerning their qualified immunity defense. Any 

proposed modifications should be submitted as soon as 

practicable. 

 Since trial is bifurcated on the amount of punitive 

damages, the verdict form concerning that issue will be given to 

the jury only if the jury finds that Plaintiff is entitled to 

punitive damages. 

Dated: February 3, 2016 

 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. DELEON, C. CARRILLO, and 

A. GUZMAN, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB 

VERDICT FORM – DEFENDANT DELEON 

WE THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FIND THE FOLLOWING VERDICT ON 

THE SUBMITTED QUESTIONS: 

Question No. 1: Does Plaintiff prevail on his 

excessive force claim against Defendant Deleon? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(If you answered yes, continue to Question No. 2. If you answered 

no, proceed to the next page and date, sign, and return this 

verdict.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 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 

2 

 Question No. 2: What is the amount of damages you 

award to Plaintiff from Defendant Deleon? 

 $______________ 

(Continue to Question No. 3.) 

 

 Question No. 3: Does Plaintiff prevail on his 

punitive damages claim against Defendant Deleon? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Date, sign, and return this verdict.) 

Dated this _____ day of _________ 2016. 

 

 ______________________________ 

 Presiding Juror 

 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. DELEON, C. CARRILLO, and 

A. GUZMAN, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB 

VERDICT FORM – DEFENDANT 

CARRILLO 

WE THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FIND THE FOLLOWING VERDICT ON 

THE SUBMITTED QUESTIONS: 

 Question No. 1: Does Plaintiff prevail on his 

retaliation claim against Defendant Carrillo? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(If you answered yes, continue to Question No. 2. If you answered 

no, proceed to the last page and date, sign, and return this 

verdict.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 5 of 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 

2 

Question No. 2: What is the amount of damages you 

award to Plaintiff from Defendant Carrillo? 

 $______________ 

(Continue to Question No. 3.) 

 Question No. 3: Does Plaintiff prevail on his 

punitive damages claim against Defendant Carrillo? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(If you answered yes to Question No. 1, continue to Question No. 

4. If you answered no to Question No. 1, proceed to the last page 

and date, sign, and return this verdict.) 

 Question No. 4: Did Defendant Carrillo have reason 

to believe that the incident of October 14, 2009, involving 

Plaintiff Silva and inmate Suastegui, could be gang-related? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 5.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 6 of 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 

3 

 Question No. 5: Did Defendant Carrillo have a 

reasonable penological justification to initiate an investigation 

into the incident of October 14, 2009, involving Plaintiff Silva 

and inmate Suastegui, in order to determine if this incident was 

gang-related? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 6.) 

 Question No. 6: Did Defendant Carrillo know that 

Silva had been engaged in First Amendment protected activity 

before initiating this investigation? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 7.) 

 Question No. 7: Did Defendant Carrillo reasonably 

gather evidence in order to determine whether the incident of 

October 14, 2009, was related to gang activity? 

 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 8.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 7 of 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 

4 

 Question No. 8: Did Defendant Carrillo reasonably 

gather evidence in order to determine whether Silva was a prison 

gang associate? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 9.) 

 Question No. 9: Did Defendant Carrillo reasonably 

submit evidence to the CDCR Office of Correctional Safety for 

review and confirmation of Silva’s gang validation? 

 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Date, sign, and return this verdict.) 

Dated this _____ day of _________ 2016. 

 

 ______________________________ 

 Presiding Juror 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 8 of 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. DELEON, C. CARRILLO, and 

A. GUZMAN, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB 

VERDICT FORM – DEFENDANT GUZMAN 

WE THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FIND THE FOLLOWING VERDICT ON 

THE SUBMITTED QUESTIONS: 

 Question No. 1: Does Plaintiff prevail on his 

retaliation claim against Defendant Guzman? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(If you answered yes, continue to Question No. 2. If you answered 

no, proceed to the last page and date, sign, and return this 

verdict.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 9 of 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 

2 

Question No. 2: What is the amount of damages you 

award to Plaintiff from Defendant Guzman? 

 $______________ 

(Continue to Question No. 3.) 

 Question No. 3: Does Plaintiff prevail on his 

punitive damages claim against Defendant Guzman? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(If you answered yes to Question No. 1, continue to Question No. 

4. If you answered no to Question No. 1, proceed to the last page 

and date, sign, and return this verdict.) 

 Question No. 4: Did Defendant Guzman have reason to 

believe that the incident of October 14, 2009, involving 

Plaintiff Silva and inmate Suastegui, could be gang-related? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 5.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 10 of 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 

3 

 Question No. 5: Did Defendant Guzman have a 

reasonable penological justification to initiate an investigation 

into the incident of October 14, 2009, involving Plaintiff Silva 

and inmate Suastegui, in order to determine if this incident was 

gang-related? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 6.) 

 Question No. 6: Did Defendant Guzman know that 

Silva had been engaged in First Amendment protected activity 

before initiating this investigation? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 7.) 

 Question No. 7: Did Defendant Guzman reasonably 

gather evidence in order to determine whether the incident of 

October 14, 2009, was related to gang activity? 

 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 8.) 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 11 of 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 

4 

 Question No. 8: Did Defendant Guzman reasonably 

gather evidence in order to determine whether Silva was a prison 

gang associate? 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Continue to Question No. 9.) 

 Question No. 9: Did Defendant Guzman reasonably 

submit evidence to the CDCR Office of Correctional Safety for 

review and confirmation of Silva’s gang validation? 

 

 Answer: ____ YES ____ NO 

(Date, sign, and return this verdict.) 

Dated this _____ day of _________ 2016. 

 

 ______________________________ 

 Presiding Juror 

 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 12 of 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. DELEON, C. CARRILLO, and 

A. GUZMAN, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB 

VERDICT FORM – PUNITIVE DAMAGES 

WE THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FIND THE FOLLOWING VERDICT ON 

THE SUBMITTED QUESTIONS: 

 [Question No. 1: What is the amount of punitive 

damages you award to Plaintiff from Defendant Deleon? 

 $______________ 

(Continue to Question No. 2.)] 

 [Question No. 2: What is the amount of punitive 

damages you award to Plaintiff from Defendant Carrillo? 

 $______________ 

(Continue to Question No. 3.)] 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 13 of 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 

2 

 [Question No. 3: What is the amount of punitive 

damages you award to Plaintiff from Defendant Guzman? 

 $______________] 

(Please date, sign, and return this verdict.) 

Dated this _____ day of _________ 2016. 

 

 ______________________________ 

 Presiding Juror 

 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/03/16 Page 14 of 14