Vargas v. Lopez

Background

The order concerns proposed preliminary and final jury instructions for the trial. The court stated that preliminary instructions would be read after the jury was sworn and before opening statements. After the evidence closed, the court would hold a charging conference to finalize the instructions, then read the final instructions after closing arguments and provide written copies to the jurors.

The case involves three claims identified by the court:

The court also stated that the action was against Whitman and Lopez-Ortega, who were described as California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation correctional officers working at the Correctional Training Facility. It was not an action against California, the Department, or a prison operated by the Department.

Preliminary Instructions

The court adopted several stipulated instructions and made specific rulings on disputed proposals. It generally preferred Vargas’s version of one instruction but removed language stating that qualified immunity was a defense for the jury to consider. The court explained that qualified immunity was for the court, not the jury, to resolve.

The court rejected a proposed habit-or-routine-practice instruction because the parties had not identified evidence that would qualify as habit evidence and because the proposed instructions were contested summaries of evidence rules rather than appropriate jury instructions. The court also rejected Vargas’s proposed deposition instruction and instead used a modified instruction explaining that jurors could consider deposition testimony presented in court in place of live testimony, insofar as possible, in the same way as live testimony.

Final Instructions for the Constitutional Claims

For the § 1983 claims, the court instructed that Vargas had to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant acted under color of state law, that the defendant’s act or failure to act deprived Vargas of a constitutional right, and that the conduct actually caused the claimed injury. The parties stipulated that the defendants acted under color of state law.

For the Eighth Amendment claim, the proposed instruction required proof that Lopez-Ortega intentionally made a decision about the conditions of Vargas’s confinement; that those conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm; that Lopez-Ortega failed to take reasonable available measures to reduce the risk despite subjective awareness of it; and that this failure caused Vargas’s injuries. The court did not decide before trial whether a deference instruction should be given. It stated that the issue would be discussed at the charging conference after the evidence closed.

For the First Amendment retaliation claim, the instruction addressed Vargas’s allegation that Whitman retaliated against him for filing a prison grievance by denying his appeal of a Rule Violation Report. The instruction required proof that Vargas engaged in protected conduct, Whitman took adverse action, the adverse action was because of the protected conduct, the action chilled Vargas’s First Amendment rights, and the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

The court declined to give Vargas’s separate proposed causation instruction for Whitman because the First Amendment retaliation instruction already addressed causation for that claim.

Negligence Instructions

The court agreed to include a special duty of care in the negligence instruction. It stated that California law recognizes a special relationship between a jailer and a prisoner that creates a duty to protect the prisoner from foreseeable harm inflicted by a third party. The instruction therefore stated that Lopez-Ortega had a duty to protect Vargas from foreseeable harm inflicted by a third party.

The negligence instruction required Vargas to prove that Lopez-Ortega was negligent, that Vargas was harmed, and that Lopez-Ortega’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm. The court also used the ordinary reasonable-care standard, explaining that Vargas had not shown that a different standard of care applied. The court rejected a proposed instruction concerning joint and several liability and did not give the defendants’ proposed comparative-fault instruction.

Damages and Other Instructions

The court approved instructions explaining that, if Vargas prevailed on any of his three claims, the jury would determine damages supported by the evidence. The damages instruction addressed the nature and extent of injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, and mental, physical, or emotional pain and suffering.

The court rejected a stipulated instruction concerning damages in a negligence claim where no actual loss was shown. Instead, it instructed that nominal damages of no more than one dollar could be awarded on the First Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims if Vargas prevailed but failed to prove damages. It instructed that nominal damages could not be awarded on the negligence claim in that situation. The court also adopted an instruction requiring clear and convincing evidence for punitive damages on the negligence claim.

The court approved instructions concerning jury deliberations and the verdict form, with minor wording changes. It also noted that the parties’ filing did not identify which preliminary instructions should be repeated in the final instructions.

Disposition

The court entered the order governing the preliminary and final jury instructions, while deferring the deference-instruction issue and the mitigation-of-damages issue until later in the trial. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Vargas’s claims.