Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799-42/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

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. COLVIN, D. McCARGAR, S.L. 

BAUGHMAN, M.A. MICHEELS, R 

YAMAMOTO, SD AKIN, D. ADAMS, 

and A GOLD,

Defendants.

No. 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB

SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO PRETRIAL 

ORDER

Defendants’ Supplemental Pretrial Statements filed June 

5, 2015, (ECF Nos. 277, 279), indicate the following second 

supplement to the February 20, 2015 Pretrial Order (“PO”) should 

issue. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The following affirmative defenses are preserved for 

trial: 

1) Statute of limitations concerning Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants McCargar, Baughman, and Micheels 

concerning the September 27, 1997 Rules Violation Report (“RVR”), 

and 

2) Qualified immunity alleged by each Defendant.

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 280 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

As the Ninth Circuit states in Act Up!/Portland v. 

Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 1993):

[T]he determination of what conduct underlies 

the alleged violation-what the officer and 

claimant did or failed to do-is a 

determination of fact [to be decided by a 

jury;] however, . . . the determination 

whether those facts support an objective 

belief that [the officer reasonably believed 

he was not violating Plaintiff’s right to be 

free from excessive force] is ordinarily a 

question for the court.

Since the jury will not decide the question of law 

involved in determining whether any Defendant is entitled to 

qualified immunity, the proposed jury instructions need not 

include instruction on this affirmative defense. The jury will 

resolve the discrete issues of fact, if any, and all assertions 

made by the parties regarding the defense of qualified immunity 

shall be confined to those issues of fact. 

Accordingly, a special verdict or interrogatories shall 

be filed by each party for all factual disputes to be resolved by 

the jury concerning the qualified immunity affirmative defense no 

later than July 21, 2015. Further, no later than July 21, 2015, 

each party shall file proposed prevailing party findings of fact 

and conclusions of law concerning this affirmative defense.

Defendants also assert their position that “[t]he 

Federal Civil Rights Act provides liability only against those 

who, through their personal involvement or failure to perform 

legally required duties, caused the deprivation of another’s 

constitutionally protected rights[,]” and they did not 

“personally cause Plaintiff any harm.” (Defs. Adams, Akins, 

Baughman, Colvin, Gold, McCargar, Micheels, and Yamamoto’s Supp. 

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 280 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Pretrial Stmt. 2:2-4, 2:12, ECF No. 277; Def. Scarsella’s Supp. 

Pretrial Stmt. 1:26-28, 2:8-9, ECF No. 279.) However, argument 

that “merely negates . . . element[s]” of a claim is not an 

affirmative defense. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 

1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A defense which demonstrates that 

plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative 

defense.”). 

Dated: June 8, 2015

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 280 Filed 06/09/15 Page 3 of 3