Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018-11/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

On May 11, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 8, 2006, the Court 1

granted plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint and ordered defendants to advise whether they wanted

to waive a response to the second amended complaint and proceed on their motion for summary judgment or

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAVIN MAURICE RHODES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. ROBINSON, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-cv-05018-LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR MODEL JURY

INSTRUCTIONS

(Doc. 136)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE

COURT TO SEND TO PLAINTIFF MODEL

JURY INSTRUCTIONS 9.1 - 9.25

Jury Trial: May 20, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 4 (LJO)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint,

lodged on May 20, 2006 and filed pursuant to the Court’s Order, on September 8, 2006. On March

9, 2007, the court adopted the undersigned’s recommendation to grant defendants’ motion for

summary judgment in part and that this case proceed on plaintiff’s First Claim for retaliation against

defendant Robinson, Eighth Claim for retaliation against defendants Robinson and Blevins and

Eleventh Claim for retaliation against defendants Tidwell, Pazo and Robertson as well as plaintiff’s

Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Tenth and Twelfth Claims for retaliation which were not specifically

addressed in defendants’ motion.1

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 137 Filed 03/19/08 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

withdrawal their motion and file a response to the second amended complaint. On September 26, 2006, defendants

advised that they wished to waive their response to the second amended complaint and proceed with their motion for

summary judgment. See Doc. 90. Claims three, four, five, seven, ten and twelve were not addressed in defendants’

motion for summary judgment. In the second amended complaint, Claim Four is entitled “Conspiracy to Obstruct

Justice” and Claim Ten is entitled “Obstruction of Justice.” In his pretrial statement, plaintiff references penal code

section 182. A private right of action under a criminal statute has rarely been implied. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441

U.S. 281, 316 (1979). Where a private right of action has been implied, “‘there was at least a statutory basis for

inferring that a civil cause of action of some sort lay in favor of someone.’” Chrysler Corp., 441 U.S. at 316

(quoting Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79 (1975)). The court has reviewed the penal statutes in question and there is no

indication that civil enforcement of any kind is available to plaintiff. Cort, 422 U.S. at 79-80; Keaukaha-Panaewa

Cmty. Ass’n v. Hawaiian Homes Comm’n, 739 F.2d 1467, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1984). However, in Claims Four and

Ten, plaintiff alleges that the acts were “designed by the defendants to chill the effect of plaintiff’s exercise of his

First Amendment rights. Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff and in order to allow the

claims to go forward, the court finds that Claims Four and Ten state claims for retaliation, which will allow plaintiff

to introduce evidence of the alleged conduct.

 

2

In this court’s pretrial order dated February 26, 2008, the Clerk of the Court was directed to

serve plaintiff with a copy of the Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions for Section 1983 actions.

(Doc. 129). On March 5, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion requesting instructions 9.1 through 9.25.

(Doc. 136). Plaintiff states in his motion that he did not receive these instructions, which he states

are relevant to the elements of his claims. The Clerk is directed to forward the requested jury

instructions to plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 137 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2