Instructions for Civil Rights Claims Under Section 1983 ...
1
Instructions for Civil Rights Claims Under Section 1983
2
3
4
Numbering of Section 1983 Instructions
5
6 4.1 Section 1983 Introductory Instruction
7
8 4.2 Section 1983 ? Burden of Proof
9
10 4.3 Section 1983 ? Elements of Claim
11
12 4.4 Section 1983 ? Action under Color of State Law
13
14
4.4.1 Section 1983 ? Action under Color of State Law Is Not in Dispute
15
16
4.4.2 Section 1983 ? Determining When an Official Acted under Color of State Law
17
18
4.4.3 Section 1983 ? Determining Whether a Private Person Conspired with a State
19
Official
20
21 4.5 Section 1983 ? Deprivation of a Federal Right
22
23 4.6 Section 1983 ? Liability in Connection with the Actions of Another
24
25
4.6.1 Section 1983 ? Supervisory Officials
26
27
4.6.2 Section 1983 ? Failure to Intervene
28
29
4.6.3 Section 1983 ? Municipalities ? General Instruction
30
31
4.6.4 Section 1983 ? Municipalities ? Statute, Ordinance or Regulation
32
33
4.6.5 Section 1983 ? Municipalities ? Choice by Policymaking Official
34
35
4.6.6 Section 1983 ? Municipalities ? Custom
36
37
4.6.7 Section 1983 ? Municipalities ? Liability Through Inadequate Training or
38
Supervision
39
40
4.6.8 Section 1983 ? Municipalities ? Liability Through Inadequate Screening
41
42 4.7 Section 1983 ? Affirmative Defenses
43
44
4.7.1 Conduct Not Covered by Absolute Immunity
45
46
4.7.2 Qualified Immunity
1
Last updated October 2014
1
2
4.7.3 Release-Dismissal Agreement
3
4 4.8 Section 1983 ? Damages
5
6
4.8.1 Compensatory Damages
7
8
4.8.2 Nominal Damages
9
10
4.8.3 Punitive Damages
11
12 4.9 Section 1983 ? Excessive Force (Including Some Types of Deadly Force) ? Stop, Arrest,
13
or Other "Seizure"
14
15
4.9.1 Section 1983 ? Instruction for Garner-Type Deadly Force Cases ? Stop, Arrest, or
16
Other "Seizure"
17
18 4.10 Section 1983 ? Excessive Force ? Convicted Prisoner
19
20 4.11 Section 1983 ? Conditions of Confinement ? Convicted Prisoner
21
22
4.11.1 Section 1983 ? Denial of Adequate Medical Care
23
24
4.11.2 Section 1983 ? Failure to Protect from Suicidal Action
25
26
4.11.3 Section 1983 ? Failure to Protect from Attack
27
28 4.12 Section 1983 ? Unlawful Seizure
29
30
4.12.1 Section 1983 ? Unlawful Seizure ? Terry Stop and Frisk
31
32
4.12.2 Section 1983 ? Unlawful Seizure ? Arrest ? Probable Cause
33
34
4.12.3 Section 1983 ? Unlawful Seizure ? Warrant Application
35
36 4.13 Section 1983 ? Malicious Prosecution
37
38
4.13.1 Section 1983 ? Burdens of Proof in Civil and Criminal Cases
39
40 4.14 Section 1983 ? State-created Danger
41
42 4.15 Section 1983 ? High-Speed Chase
43
44 4.16 Section 1983 ? Duty to Protect Child in Foster Care
2 Last updated October 2014
4.1 Section 1983 Introductory Instruction
1 4.1
Section 1983 Introductory Instruction
2
3 Model
4
5
[Plaintiff]1 is suing under Section 1983, a civil rights law passed by Congress that provides
6 a remedy to persons who have been deprived of their federal [constitutional] [statutory] rights 7 under color of state law.2
1 Referring to the parties by their names, rather than solely as "Plaintiff" and "Defendant," can improve jurors' comprehension. In these instructions, bracketed references to "[plaintiff]" or "[defendant]" indicate places where the name of the party should be inserted.
2 In these instructions, references to action under color of state law are meant to include action under color of territorial law. See, e.g., Eddy v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 955 F. Supp. 468, 476 (D.V.I. 1997) ("The net effect of the Supreme Court decisions interpreting 42 U.S.C. ? 1983, including Will [v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989),] and Ngiraingas [v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182 (1990)], is to treat the territories and their officials and employees the same as states and their officials and employees."), reconsidered on other grounds, 961 F. Supp. 113 (D.V.I. 1997); see also Iles v. de Jongh, 638 F.3d 169, 177-78 (3d Cir. 2011) (analyzing official-capacity claims against Governor of Virgin Islands under, inter alia, Will).
3 Last updated October 2014
4.2 Section 1983 ? Burden of Proof
1 4.2
Section 1983 ? Burden of Proof
2
3 Model
4
5
[Provide Instruction 1.10 on burden of proof, modified (if necessary) as discussed in the
6 Comment below.]
7
8
9 Comment
10
11
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the elements of a Section 1983 claim. See, e.g.,
12 Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995). The court can use Instruction
13 1.10 to apprise the jury of this burden.
14
15
Where there is a jury question on the issue of qualified immunity, some additional
16 instruction on burdens may occasionally be necessary.
17
18
Although the defendant has the burden of pleading the defense of qualified immunity, see
19 Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); Thomas v. Independence Tp., 463 F.3d 285, 293 (3d
20 Cir. 2006),3 the Supreme Court has not definitively established who bears the burden of proof with
21 respect to that defense, see, e.g., Gomez, 446 U.S. at 642 (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (construing
22 the opinion of the Court "to leave open the issue of the burden of persuasion, as opposed to the
23 burden of pleading, with respect to a defense of qualified immunity").
24
25
The Third Circuit has stated that the defendant bears the burden of proof on qualified
26 immunity. See, e.g., Burns v. PA Dep't of Corrections, 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011)
27 (defendant has burden to establish entitlement to qualified immunity); Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d
28 772, 776 (3d Cir. 2004) (same); Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 142 n.15 (3d Cir. 2001)
29 (same); Karnes v. Skrutski, 62 F.3d 485, 491 (3d Cir. 1995) (same); Stoneking v. Bradford Area
30 Sch. Dist., 882 F.2d 720, 726 (3d Cir. 1989) (same); Ryan v. Burlington County, N.J., 860 F.2d
31 1199, 1204 n.9 (3d Cir. 1988) (same). However, some other Third Circuit opinions suggest that
32 the burden of proof regarding qualified immunity may vary with the element in question.4 For
3 See Sharp v. Johnson, 669 F.3d 144, 158-59 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting "that parties should generally assert affirmative defenses early in the litigation," but finding no abuse of discretion in trial court's permission to assert qualified immunity defense at trial where the defense had been pleaded and where the failure to present the defense by motion prior to trial made sense ? due to the need for fact development ? and did not prejudice the plaintiff).
4 As discussed below (see Comment 4.7.2), the qualified immunity analysis poses three 4 Last updated October 2014
4.2 Section 1983 ? Burden of Proof
1 example, the court has stated that "[w]here a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a
2 motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant's
3 conduct violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional right. . . . Only if the plaintiff
4 carries this initial burden must the defendant then demonstrate that no genuine issue of material
5 fact remains as to the `objective reasonableness' of the defendant's belief in the lawfulness of his
6 actions." Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Hynson By and
7 Through Hynson v. City of Chester, 827 F.2d 932, 935 (3d Cir. 1987) ("Although the officials
8 claiming qualified immunity have the burden of pleading and proof . . . , a plaintiff who seeks
9 damages for violation of constitutional rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified
10 immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at
11 issue.").
12
13
A distinction between the burden of proof as to the constitutional violation and the burden
14 of proof as to objective reasonableness makes sense in the light of the structure of Section 1983
15 litigation. To prove her claim, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a constitutional violation;
16 qualified immunity becomes relevant only if the plaintiff carries that burden. Accordingly, the
17 plaintiff should bear the burden of proving the existence of a constitutional violation in connection
18 with the qualified immunity issue as well. However, it would accord with decisions such as Kopec
19 (and it would not contravene decisions such as Sherwood) to place the burden on the defendant to
20 prove that a reasonable officer would not have known, under the circumstances, that the conduct
21 was illegal.5
22
23
As noted in Comment 4.7.2, a jury question concerning qualified immunity will arise only
questions: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right; (2) whether the right was clearly established; and (3) whether it would have been clear to a reasonable official, under the circumstances, that the conduct was unlawful. The issue of evidentiary burdens of proof implicates only the first and third questions.
5 There is language in Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 430 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2005), which may be perceived as being in tension with Kopec's statement that the defendant has the burden of proof on qualified immunity. In Marasco the Court of Appeals held the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs' state-created danger claim because the court "conclude[d] that the Smiths cannot show that a reasonable officer would have recognized that his conduct was `conscience-shocking.'" Id. at 156. While this language can be read as contemplating that the plaintiffs have a burden of persuasion, it should be noted that the court was not focusing on a factual dispute but rather on the clarity of the caselaw at the time of the relevant events. See id. at 154 (stressing that the relevant question was "whether the law, as it existed in 1999, gave the troopers `fair warning' that their actions were unconstitutional") (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)).
5 Last updated October 2014
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- precedential
- 4 dynamics force and newton s laws of motion
- chapter 28a administration of decedents estates 28a 1
- subpoenas using subpoenas to obtain evidence
- forces newton s laws of motion
- instructions for civil rights claims under section 1983
- chapter 14 09 parent and child 14 09 00 1 definitions
- citing your sources of information california
- file a motion for revision in a family law case
Related searches
- 1983 civil rights lawsuit
- civil rights 1983 federal form
- 1983 civil rights lawsuit form
- examples of section 1983 lawsuits
- 1983 civil rights law
- title 42 section 1983 lawsuit
- section 1983 action
- section 1983 lawyers
- prisoners 1983 civil rights forms
- section 1983 complaint examples
- sample 1983 civil rights lawsuits
- 1983 civil rights complaint