Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04947/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04947-9/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. SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL 

PRETRIAL ORDER

JEFFREY TAYLOR, et al.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Pursuant to a telephone conference held on September 8, 2006 to discuss various

problems that have arisen since the final pretrial conference, including those involving the

jury instructions and verdict forms, the court supplements the final pretrial order as follows:

1. With regard to the third cause of action, plaintiff dismisses defendants

Flores and North as well as state law claims under Article I § 13 and

California Civil Code § 43 and 1708. The third cause of action will proceed

against defendants Taylor and Bates for conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s rights

found in Civil Code § 52.1, and against the County and Sheriff’s Department

for the same violation based on a respondeat superior theory. Plaintiff shall

brief for the court how the allegations of his complaint state a claim under §

52.1 and how he proposes the conspiracy allegation be resolved–by the court

or by the jury. Proposed jury instructions shall also be submitted on the 52.1

claim and on the conspiracy issue, if plaintiff believes that is a jury question. 

Plaintiff’s brief shall be filed and his jury instruction(s) submitted on

September 11, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. at the commencement of trial. Defendants’

opposition shall be filed on September 14, 2006 at 8:30 am. No reply shall be

permitted and the court will attempt to resolve the question by week’s end.

2. The parties shall revise the Monell instruction and the state law municipal

liability instruction to clarify for the jury that there are different standards for

Case 4:04-cv-04947-PJH Document 85 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 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

2

plaintiff’s federal and state claims. This instruction may be submitted after the

court has resolved whether a state law claim will be permitted.

3. Defendants’ qualified immunity instruction is withdrawn. Instead the verdict

form shall be revised to ask the jury to find the facts necessary to enable the

court to make a qualified immunity determination after trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2006 ________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04947-PJH Document 85 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 2