Hunter v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 197

ORDER REGARDING PHASE ONE JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 8/9/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

DARRELL HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-4911 JSC
ORDER REGARDING PHASE ONE
JURY INSTRUCTIONS

14
15

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

At the jury instruction conference held in open court on August 8, 2013, the Court
made several rulings. This Order further explains two of those rulings.
A.

Bane Act Instruction

The Court has elected to follow the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury
Instruction (“CACI”) No. 3066. In its order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, the Court ruled that under the Bane Act the “threat, coercion
or intimidation’ must be separate from the right which the plaintiff alleges was violated.
(Dkt. No. 59 at 7-8.) With respect to Deputy Burleson, the Court denied summary judgment
because the evidence supported a finding that Deputy Burleson threatened Plaintiff when he
allegedly warned Plaintiff: “This is our house. You do exactly what we tell you to do.” (Id.
at 8.) The Bane Act, California Civil Code Section 52.1(j), provides that “[s]peech alone is

1

not sufficient to support an action brought pursuant to [the Bane Act], except upon a showing

2

that the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons.”

3

Accordingly, the CACI instruction –which requires the threat to be a threat of violence—is

4

warranted.

5

B.

Civil Conspiracy Instruction

6

The Court overruled Plaintiff’s request that the jury be instructed that they can find a

upon the Defendant’s participation in a conspiracy. First, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

9

does not allege a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free of excessive

10

force. “To state a claim for a conspiracy to violate one’s constitutional rights under section

11
Northern District of California

defendant liable for a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or state-law claims based

8

United States District Court

7

1983, the plaintiff must state specific facts to support the existence of the claimed

12

conspiracy.” Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Buckey v.

13

County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that to state a section 1983

14

conspiracy claim the complaint must “allege facts to support the existence of a conspiracy

15

among the defendants”). California law similarly requires the plaintiff to allege the formation

16

and operation of a conspiracy. See Wasco Products, Inc. v. Southwall Technologies, Inc., 435

17

F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2006). No such facts are alleged in the Amended Complaint, either in

18

the paragraphs reciting the “Facts Applicable to All Causes of Action,” nor the section 1983

19

cause of action for excessive force, nor the state law causes of action. (Dkt. No. 26.) The

20

Court will not instruct on a claim that was never alleged. 1

21

Second, Plaintiff only submitted one conspiracy jury instruction. The proposed

22

instruction states that a defendant may be liable for conspiring to violate one’s constitutional

23

rights, but Plaintiff did not propose a single instruction on the law governing whether a

24

conspiracy existed in the first place. Plaintiff also did not propose any jury instructions on the

25
26
27
28

1

The boilerplate allegations in the “Parties” portion of the Amended Complaint are
insufficient to put Defendants on notice of conspiracy claims. (Dkt. No. 26 at ¶¶ 19, 21.) Not
a single fact is alleged and, again, there is no mention of a conspiracy, or any facts supporting
a conspiracy, in the factual potion of the Amended Complaint or any of the causes of action.
2

1

state law causes of action. Plaintiff’s eve-of-oral-argument request for the “CACI”

2

instructions, without identifying which instructions, is too little too late.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: August 9, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3