Martin v. City of San Jose

Nature of the order

The court issued proposed preliminary, trial, and final jury instructions. It stated that the instructions were subject to modification based on the evidence and developments at trial. The court invited objections by 12:00 noon on May 7, 2021. This order does not contain a verdict or decide liability.

Claims and parties

Andy Martin asserted three claims:

The proposed instructions state that the City claims are based on Officer Ribeiro’s acts or omissions while acting within the scope of his employment. The defendants denied the claims. The court noted that the § 1983 and Bane Act claims are nearly duplicative in their underlying violations and directed the parties to discuss whether the claims could be submitted to the jury in a simplified manner.

Agreed facts

The proposed instructions state that the parties agreed that Officer Ribeiro was employed as a City of San Jose police officer and was acting under color of state law during the incident, that the incident occurred on May 2, 2018, and that Martin suffered injuries to his pelvic and right-ankle areas. The court also directed the parties to discuss additional facts proposed by the defendants.

Federal excessive-force claim

The proposed § 1983 instructions required Martin to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Officer Ribeiro acted under color of state law, deprived Martin of a constitutional right, and caused injury or damage. The instructions identified the asserted right as the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure.

The proposed instructions stated that Martin had to prove that Ribeiro seized him, acted intentionally in hitting and/or backing over him, and used unreasonable force. An intentional act required a conscious objective to engage in the conduct; an accidental or negligent act would not satisfy that requirement, although Martin did not have to prove that Ribeiro intended to violate his constitutional rights.

The proposed excessive-force instruction used an objective reasonableness test. It directed the jury to evaluate the force from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, without relying on hindsight or the officer’s subjective motive. Listed considerations included the circumstances known to the officer, any immediate threat, resistance or flight, the time available to assess the situation, the type and amount of force, alternatives, relative responsibility for creating the danger, warnings, mistaken perceptions, probable cause, and opportunities to de-escalate. The court declined to include a separate deadly-force instruction.

Bane Act claim

The proposed Bane Act instruction required proof that Officer Ribeiro used threats, intimidation, or coercion to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, Martin’s right to be free from excessive force; intended to deprive Martin of the interests protected by that right; harmed Martin; and substantially contributed to that harm. Although the claim was asserted against the City, the jury was instructed to consider Ribeiro’s actions as a City employee.

The court also discussed the meaning of specific intent. It stated that reckless disregard is encompassed by the specific-intent requirement when the right is clearly established and the defendant acted with the particular purpose of interfering with the protected interests.

Negligence claim and defenses

The proposed negligence instruction required Martin to prove that Ribeiro used force while arresting or detaining him, that the force was unreasonable, that Martin was harmed, and that the force substantially contributed to the harm. The jury was to consider the totality of the circumstances, including any immediate threat, the seriousness of the suspected crime, resistance or attempted flight, and Ribeiro’s tactical conduct and decisions before using force.

The City’s proposed comparative-fault defense applied only to the negligence claim. If the City proved that Martin was negligent and that his negligence substantially contributed to his harm, damages would be reduced according to Martin’s percentage of responsibility. The proposed instructions did not apply comparative fault to the § 1983 or Bane Act claims.

Damages and jury conduct

The proposed instructions addressed proof of economic and noneconomic damages, future damages, mitigation, and punitive damages. They stated that punitive damages were unavailable against the City under state law but could be considered against Officer Ribeiro on the § 1983 claim under the stated standard. The instructions also directed jurors to decide the facts from admitted evidence, avoid outside research and communications, disregard publicity, evaluate witness credibility, and deliberate impartially.

Result

Judge Edward M. Chen proposed the jury instructions and directed the parties to submit objections and meet and confer on specified issues. The opinion does not state a disposition of the underlying claims or a final ruling on which party would prevail.