Velasquez v. City of Santa Clara et al
Filing
270
REVISED FINAL VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on April 7, 2014. (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
VICTOR VELAZQUEZ,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Date: April 7, 2014
____________________________
Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
I.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT – EXCESSIVE
FORCE BY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS STEVE BURESS, CRAIG
MIDDLEKAUFF AND NICK RICHARDS
3
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
4
1. Did any defendant use excessive force against Victor Velasquez?
5
6
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section II.
2. Was Velasquez harmed by any defendant’s excessive force?
11
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
12
13
14
15
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section II.
16
17
3. Was any defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?
18
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
19
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
20
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
21
22
IF YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION 3 AS TO ANY DEFENDANT IS “YES,” GO TO
SECTION II.
23
OTHERWISE, GO TO SECTION V.
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
II.
42 USC § 1983 - PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY - RATIFICATION
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Was Stephen Lodge a supervisor of the City of Santa Clara with final authority over the
acts of any defendant whose excessive force was a substantial factor in causing harm to
Velasquez?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 1 is “Yes,” then answer Question 2. If you answered “No,” go to
Section III.
2. Did Lodge know of the acts of the defendant whose excessive force was a substantial
factor in causing harm to Velasquez?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question is “Yes,”, then answer Question 3. If you answered “No,” go to Section
III.
12
13
14
3. Did Lodge specifically approve of the acts of the defendant whose excessive force was
a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?
Yes _____ No _____
15
GO TO SECTION III.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
III.
42 USC § 1983 - PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY - FAILURE TO TRAIN
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Was the City of Santa Clara’s training program inadequate to train its officers to
properly handle usual and recurring situations?
4
5
6
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 1 is “Yes.”, then answer Question 2. If you answered “No,” go to
Section IV.
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
2. Did City of Santa Clara know, or should it have been obvious to it, that the inadequate
training program was likely to result in a deprivation of Velasquez’ Fourth Amendment
rights?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 2 is “Yes,” then answer Question 3. If not, go to Section IV.
3. Was the failure to provide adequate training the cause of the deprivation of Velasquez’
Fourth Amendment rights?
Yes _____ No _____
GO TO SECTION IV.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
5
6
IV.
BANE ACT
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did any defendant interfere with or attempt to interfere with Velasquez’ right to be free
from unreasonable seizure by means of excessive force by threat, intimidation, or
coercion?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section V.
2. Did any defendant do so to prevent Velasquez from exercising his right to be free from
unreasonable seizure by means of excessive force or retaliate against him for having
exercised his right to be free from unreasonable seizure by means of excessive force?
12
13
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
14
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
15
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
16
17
18
If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section V.
3. Was any defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?
19
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
20
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
21
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
22
GO TO SECTION V.
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
V.
NEGLIGENCE
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
3
1. Was any officer negligent?
4
5
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
6
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
7
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section VI.
2. Was the negligence of the officer(s) a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?
11
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
12
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
13
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
14
15
16
17
18
19
If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3. If not, go to
Section VI.
3. Was Velasquez negligent?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 3 is “Yes,” then answer Question 4. If not, go to Section VI.
4. Was Velasquez’ negligence a substantial factor in causing his harm?
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 4 is “Yes,” then answer Question 5. If not, go to Section VI.
5. What percentage of responsibility for Velasquez’ harm do you assign to Velasquez?
_______%
GO TO SECTION VI.
26
27
28
6
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI.
BATTERY BY A PEACE OFFICER
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did any officer(s) touch Velasquez with the intent to harm or offend him?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VII.
2. Did any officer(s) use unreasonable force when arresting Velasquez?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
12
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
13
14
15
16
If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VII.
3. Was any officer(s)’ use of unreasonable force a substantial factor in causing harm to
Velasquez?
17
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
18
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
19
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
20
GO TO SECTION VII.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
VII.
ASSAULT
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did any defendant act with the intent to cause a harmful or an offensive contact with
Velasquez or with the intent to place him in fear of a harmful or an offensive contact?
4
5
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
6
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
7
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.
2. Did Velasquez reasonably believe that he was about to be touched in a harmful or an
offensive manner?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
12
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
13
14
15
16
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.
3. Did Velasquez consent to any defendant’s conduct?
17
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
18
19
20
21
22
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 3 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 4 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.
4. Was any defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?
23
24
25
26
27
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 4 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 5 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.
28
8
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
5. Did any defendant reasonably believe that Victor Velasquez was going to harm him or
another person?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
3
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No ____
If your answer to Question 5 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 6 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.
6. Did the defendant use only the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to protect
himself or another person?
d. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
e. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
f. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No ____
12
GO TO SECTION VIII.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
5
6
VIII. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Was any defendant’s conduct outrageous?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section IX.
2. Did any defendant act with reckless disregard of the possibility that Velasquez would
suffer emotional distress?
11
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
12
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
13
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
14
15
16
If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section IX.
3. Did Velasquez suffer severe emotional distress?
17
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
18
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
19
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
20
21
22
If your answer to Question 3 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 4 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section IX.
4. Was any defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing Velasquez’ severe
emotional distress?
23
24
25
26
27
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
GO TO SECTION IX.
28
10
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
5
6
IX.
RALPH ACT
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
2. Did any defendant threaten or commit violent acts against Velasquez?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section X.
3. Was any defendant's perception of Velasquez's race and/or ancestry a motivating reason
for that defendant’s threats or conduct?
11
d. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
12
e. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
13
f. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
14
15
16
If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section X.
4. Would a reasonable person in Velasquez’s position have believed that any defendant
would carry out his threats?
17
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 3 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 4 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section X.
5. Would a reasonable person in Velasquez's position have been intimidated by any
defendant's conduct?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
27
28
If your answer to Question 4 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 5 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section X.
11
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
6. Was any defendant's conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?
2
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
3
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
4
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
5
GO TO SECTION X.
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
5
6
X.
RATIFICATION
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. We, the jury, have answered “Yes” to one or more of the following questions:
a. _______ Section IV, Question 3 (Violations of the Bane Act)
b. _______ Section V, Question 2 (Negligence)
c. _______ Section VI, Question 3 (Battery by a Peace Officer)
7
8
9
d. _______ Section VII, Question 6 (Assault)
e. _______ Section VIII, Question 4 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
f. _______ Section IX, Question 5 (Violations of the Ralph Act)
11
If you checked any question under Question 1, then answer Question 2. If not, go to Section XI.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2. While engaging in the conduct at issue in Question 1, was Buress, Middlekauff, and/or
Richards intending to act on behalf of the City of Santa Clara?
Yes _____ No ______
If your answer to Question 2 is “Yes,” then answer Question 3. If not, go to Section XI.
3. Did the City of Santa Clara learn of the conduct that subjected Buress, Middlekauff,
and/or Richards to liability under any of the following theories after the conduct
occurred?
Yes _____ No ______
19
If your answer to Question 3 is “Yes,” then answer Question 4. If not, go to Section XI.
20
21
22
4. Did the City of Santa Clara approve of the conduct that subjected Buress, Middlekauff,
and/or Richards to liability under any of the following theories?
Yes _____ No ______
23
24
GO TO SECTION XI.
25
26
27
28
13
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
4
5
6
XI.
DAMAGES
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. We, the jury, have answered “Yes” to one or more of the following questions:
a. _______ Section I, Question 3 (§ 1983- Excessive Use of Force)
b. _______ Section II, Question 3 (§ 1983- Public Entity Liability by Ratification)
7
c. _______ Section III, Question 3 (§ 1983- Public Entity Liability by Failure to
xxxxxxxiTrain)
8
d. _______ Section IV, Question 1 (Violations of the Bane Act)
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
e. _______ Section V, Question 2 (Negligence)
f. _______ Section VI, Question 3 (Battery by a Peace Officer)
11
12
13
g. _______ Section VII, Question 6 (Assault)
h. _______ Section VIII, Question 4 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
14
i. _______ Section IX, Question 5 (Violations of the Ralph Act)
15
If you checked any question under Question 1, then answer Question 2. If not, stop here, answer
no further questions, and have the foreperson sign and date this form.
16
17
18
2. What is the total amount of damages, if any, suffered by Velasquez? Do not award
duplicate damages for the same harm suffered from multiple claims.
$ __________________
19
20
21
22
23
3. Did Velasquez use reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 3 is “No,” then answer Question 4. If not, go to Question 5.
4. How much of Velasquez’ damages could have been mitigated by Velasquez’ reasonable
efforts?
24
25
$ __________________
26
27
28
14
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
5. We, the jury, have answered “Yes” to one or more of the following questions with
respect to the following defendants:
a. Section I, Question 3 (§ 1983- Excessive Use of Force)
3
i. Steve Buress: _____
4
5
6
7
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____
iii. Nick Richards: _____
b. Section IV, Question 3 (Violations of the Bane Act)
8
i. Steve Buress: _____
9
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
iii. Nick Richards: _____
c. Section VI, Question 3 (Battery by a Peace Officer)
i. Steve Buress: _____
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____
14
iii. Nick Richards: _____
15
d. Section VII, Question 6 (Assault)
16
17
18
19
20
i. Steve Buress: _____
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____
iii. Nick Richards: _____
e. Section VIII, Question 4 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
21
i. Steve Buress: _____
22
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____
23
iii. Nick Richards: _____
24
25
f. Section IX, Question 5 (Violations of the Ralph Act)
i. Steve Buress: _____
26
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____
27
28
iii. Nick Richards: _____
15
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
1
2
3
If you checked any question for any defendant under Question 5, go to Question 6 and answer as to
each of the officers whom you checked If not, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the
foreperson sign and date this form.
5. Did the officer(s) engage in malice, oppression, or in reckless disregard of Velasquez’
rights with respect to any of the listed claims for which you answered “Yes” above?
4
5
i. Steve Buress: _____ Yes
_______ No
6
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____ Yes
7
iii. Nick Richards: _____ Yes
8
_______ No
_______ No
If you checked “Yes” for any defendant under Question 5, then answer Question 6. If not, stop
here, answer no further questions, and have the foreperson sign and date this form.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
6. What amount, if any, do you award in punitive damages?
11
Steve Buress: $ __________________
12
Craig Middlekauff: $ __________________
13
Nick Richards: $ __________________
14
Have the foreperson sign and date this form.
15
16
Signed: _________________________________ Dated: _________________
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?