Castellanos et al v. State of California et al

Filing 100

ORDER Re Disputed Instruction 9.29. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 16, 2016. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDIN S. CASTELLANOS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-00272-JSW
COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING
REGARDING DISPUTED FINAL
INSTRUCTION 9.29

v.
JEREMY J. MAYA,
Defendant.

12
13

The Court has considered the parties’ briefs regarding disputed final instruction 9.29. The

14

Court is tentatively inclined to give a modified version of Model Instruction 9.29, and it is inclined

15

to base the description of the claim on Defendant’s proposed language.

16

The Court also is inclined to find that a conviction is not an element of the claim based on

17

Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (the “Devereaux claim”). Although Defendant

18

faults Plaintiff for not providing any authority in support of his position that a conviction is not an

19

element, Defendant also has not cited this Court to any cases that address whether a conviction is

20

an element of the claim in the context of a dispute over jury instructions. Defendant has cited to

21

Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, 717 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2013). Although the Gantt case is a jury

22

instruction case, in that case, the court addressed the district court’s instructions on the question of

23

whether the defendant’s conduct “shocked the conscience.”

24

Defendant also cites the Court to Lisker v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV09-09374, 2013

25

WL 1276047, at *15, (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2013) The Lisker case also is not a jury instruction case,

26

and although in that case the defendant had been convicted, the court makes no mention of

27

conviction as an element of the claim. It merely states that the use of the allegedly fabricated

28

evidence at trial “likely affected the jury’s verdict.” .

1
2

The Court is aware that model instruction 9.29 uses the term “convict,” and in general the

3

Court is inclined to follow the model instructions as drafted. In Devereaux, the Ninth Circuit

4

relied in part to reach its holding on Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216 (1942). The Devereaux

5

court stated that in Pyle, the Supreme Court held that “the knowing use by the prosecution of

6

perjured testimony in order to secure a criminal conviction violates the Constitution.” Devereaux,

7

263 F.3d at 1075. The Ninth Circuit went on to state that, “[w]hile Pyle does not deal specifically

8

with the bringing of criminal charges, as opposed to the securing of a conviction, we find that the

9

wrongfulness of charging someone on the basis of deliberately fabricated evidence is sufficiently
obvious, and Pyle is sufficiently analogous, that the right to be free from such charges is a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

constitutional right.” Id. (emphasis added).

12

That proposition was recently reiterated in Bradford v. Scherschligt, 803 F.3d 382, 388

13

(9th Cir. 2015). In Bradford, the court stated that the right at issue in “a Devereaux claim is the

14

right to be free from criminal charges based on a claim of deliberately fabricated evidence.” Id. at

15

388. Although the Bradford court was not called upon to consider jury instructions, it stated that

16

“[i]f Bradford’s original 1996 trial had resulted in an acquittal, his Devereaux claim would have

17

accrued on the date the charges against him were dismissed.” Id. at 388 (court has emphasized the

18

word acquittal). That language suggests that a conviction is not an element of the claim.

19

To the extent the Defendant argues that a conviction is required to distinguish a Devereaux

20

claim from a malicious prosecution claim, the Court is not persuaded. Rather, it appears that the

21

difference between the two types of claims relates to a defendant’s level of culpability on a claim

22

based on a substantive due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Court

23

discusses in more detail below.

24

Accordingly, the Court is inclined to modify the current version of the model instruction as

25

follows: “The defendant, Jeremy Maya, deliberately fabricated evidence that was used to bring

26

criminal charges against plaintiff, Edin Castellanos.”

27
28

The Court also is inclined to give a modified version of the second paragraph, because that
is the factual theory that supports plaintiff’s claim. The Court will omit the third paragraph, both
2

1

bec
cause neither party suggests using it and because it does not fit Plaintiff’ theory of t case.
r
e
’s
the

2

Finally, the parties have not inc
,
cluded the “d
deliberate in
ndifference” language used in the

3

mo instructi
odel
ion. The Co is incline to use tha language. See Gantt, 7 F.3d at 7
ourt
ed
at
717
707-08

4

(“d process violations un
due
v
nder the Fou
urteenth Ame
endment occ only whe official co
cur
en
onduct,

5

sho
ocks the conscience,” an stating tha “an officer “delibera indifferen
nd
at
r’s
ate
nce” may suffice to

6

sho the conscience”).
ock

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

If the parties wish to submit add
t
ditional brie
efing on the C
Court’s tenta
ative ruling o this
on
ins
struction, the may do so by no later than July 6, 2016.
ey
o
,
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 16 2016
6,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3