McMurray v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 86

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/3/12 ORDERING the proposed qualified immunity jury instructions are an inadequate guide for the jury's deliberation since they do not explain instructed terms. In light of this ruling on how the qualified immunity affirmative defense will be decided, the 59 Final Pretrial Order is supplemented with this order. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VALETTA McMURRAY,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

11

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; DEPUTY
SHERIFF JAVIER BUSTAMANTE, and
DEPUTY SHERIFF L. CULP,

12

Defendants.
________________________________

10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-cv-02245-GEB-EFB
ORDER

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendants

have

proposed

the

following

jury

instructions

concerning their qualified immunity affirmative defense:
The defendants assert the defense of qualified
immunity to plaintiff’s claims under section 1983.
Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand
trial or face the other burdens of litigation.
Determining whether a law enforcement officer
is entitled to qualified immunity require[s] three
inquires [sic]:
1.
The identification of the specific right
allegedly violated;
2.
Whether
the
right
was
so clearly
established as to alert a reasonable officer to his
constitutional parameters; and
3.
Whether a reasonable officer could have
believed his conduct to be lawful.
If a reasonable officer in defendants’
position could have believed that his conduct was
lawful in light of clearly established law at the
time of the incident, he is protected from
liability by qualified immunity.

28
1

1

(Joint Proposed Civil Jury Instructions, Instructions Nos. 23-25, ECF

2

No. 66, pages 30-32.)

3

These proposed qualified immunity jury instructions are an

4

inadequate “guide [for] the jury’s deliberation” since they do not

5

explain instructed terms. U.S. v. Redlightning, 624 F.3d 1090, 1122 (9th

6

Cir.

7

constitutes a “reasonable officer,” or what “clearly established law”

8

means.

2010)(internal

quotation

omitted).

They

do

not

explain

what

9

“Jury instructions must be formulated so that they fairly and

10

adequately cover the issues presented, correctly state the law, and are

11

not misleading. The instructions must allow the jury to determine the

12

issues presented intelligently.” Fikes v. Cleghorn, 47 F.3d 1011, 1013

13

(9th Cir. 1995)(citation omitted). Since the proposed qualified immunity

14

jury instructions fail to follow these principles, and it is unclear

15

whether suitable instructions could be drafted for the impending trial,

16

which is scheduled to commence on February 7, 2012, the question of law

17

involved with this affirmative defense shall be decided by the court,

18

rather than the jury-notwithstanding the parties’ indication in their

19

Joint Pretrial Statement that all issues would be submitted to the jury.

20

As the Ninth Circuit states in Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868,

21

873 (9th Cir. 1993):

22

26

[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.

27

Since the jury will not decide the question of law involved

28

with this defense, the jury need not be informed about the affirmative

23
24
25

2

1

defense of qualified immunity during any part of the proceedings. The

2

jury

3

assertions made by the parties regarding the defense of qualified

4

immunity shall be confined to those issues of fact.

will

5

resolve

In

light

the

of

discrete

this

issues

ruling

on

of

how

fact,

the

if

any,

qualified

and

all

immunity

6

affirmative defense will be decided, the Final Pretrial Order (ECF No.

7

59) is supplemented as follows:

8

A special verdict or interrogatories shall be filed by each

9

party no later than February 8, 2012, for all factual disputes to be

10

resolved by the jury concerning the qualified immunity affirmative

11

defense. Further, no later than February 8, 2012, each party shall file

12

proposed prevailing party findings of fact and conclusions of law

13

concerning the qualified immunity affirmative defense.

14

Dated:

February 3, 2012

15
16
17

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3