Vargas v. Lopez

Nature of the order

The court issued proposed final jury instructions for trial and directed the parties to be prepared to discuss objections, comments, or suggestions at the charging conference. This opinion does not report the jury’s verdict or resolve the parties’ claims on the merits.

Claims described in the instructions

The proposed instructions state that Vargas brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing a person to seek relief when someone acting under state law violates rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. The instructions state that the parties stipulated that the defendants acted under color of state law.

The instructions identify an Eighth Amendment claim against Lopez-Ortega based on the allegation that Lopez-Ortega purposely released Vargas to the prison yard. They also identify a First Amendment retaliation claim against Whitman based on the allegation that Whitman denied Vargas’s appeal of a Rule Violation Report in retaliation for Vargas’s filing of a grievance. The proposed instructions also address Vargas’s negligence claim against Lopez-Ortega.

Security-deference instruction

The defendants requested a deference instruction in the § 1983 instructions concerning particular rights, and Vargas opposed that request. The court stated that Ninth Circuit law requires such an instruction when there is no genuine dispute that the challenged treatment was provided under a security-based policy or practice and was a necessary, justified, and non-exaggerated response to security needs.

The court did not include the requested deference instruction. It stated that, during trial, the defendants had not offered evidence that the challenged treatment—purposely releasing Vargas to the yard on May 25, 2021, and denying his Rule Violation Report appeal—was provided under a security-based policy or practice.

Mitigation of damages

The defendants previously requested an instruction on mitigation of damages and asked that Vargas’s duty to mitigate be submitted to the jury. Mitigation means using reasonable efforts to avoid or reduce damages after a legal wrong has occurred. The court included a proposed mitigation instruction because Vargas testified that he initially declined medication for post-traumatic stress disorder when a healthcare provider first recommended it, but later decided to take the medication.

Under the proposed instruction, the defendants would have the burden of proving both that Vargas failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages and the amount by which the damages would have been reduced.

Other proposed instructions

The instructions explain the burdens of proof, the evidence the jury may consider, witness credibility, deposition testimony, and deciding each defendant’s responsibility separately. They set out the elements of the Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, the First Amendment retaliation claim, and negligence.

The damages instructions address compensatory damages, nominal damages, mitigation, and punitive damages. The instructions state that nominal damages for the First Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims may not exceed one dollar, while nominal damages may not be awarded for the negligence claim. They also instruct that any verdict must be unanimous.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the proposed jury instructions, omitted the requested security-deference instruction, and included the proposed mitigation instruction. No jury verdict or final judgment is stated in the opinion.