ORDER REGARDING SHACKELING AND TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED VERDICT FORMS AND WRITTEN QUESTIONS CONCERNING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
An order finalizing and supplementing the July 21, 2015 Pretrial Order was filed on January 12, 2016, which stated, in relevant part:
It is expected that Plaintiff will appear at trial seated at counsel table with a leg restraint that is shielded from the jury's view by a fabric panel that runs from the bottom of counsel table to the floor and that Plaintiff will offer his testimony from counsel table. Should Plaintiff object to either of these provisions, no later than February 1, 2016, he shall file written objections thereto. Any response to an objection shall be filed no later than February 3, 2016.
(Order 3:17-24, ECF No. 91.) No objection to these provisions was filed. Therefore, and in light of the nature of the crimes for which Plaintiff has been convicted, Plaintiff's legs shall be shackled during trial as indicated, and should Plaintiff elect to give testimony, he shall call himself as a witness and give testimony from counsel table. Plaintiff's hands will not be shackled during trial.
Further, attached are the Court's proposed verdict forms, which include the written questions two Defendants submitted concerning their qualified immunity defense. Any proposed modifications should be submitted as soon as practicable.
Since trial is bifurcated on the amount of punitive damages, the verdict form concerning that issue will be given to the jury only if the jury finds that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
VERDICT FORM — DEFENDANT DELEON
WE THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FIND THE FOLLOWING VERDICT ON THE SUBMITTED QUESTIONS:
Question No. 1: Does Plaintiff prevail on his excessive force claim against Defendant Deleon?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(If you answered yes, continue to Question No. 2. If you answered no, proceed to the next page and date, sign, and return this verdict.)
Question No. 2: What is the amount of damages you award to Plaintiff from Defendant Deleon?
$______________
(Continue to Question No. 3.)
Question No. 3: Does Plaintiff prevail on his punitive damages claim against Defendant Deleon?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Date, sign, and return this verdict.)
Dated this _____ day of _________ 2016.
______________________________
Presiding Juror
VERDICT FORM — DEFENDANT CARRILLO
WE THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FIND THE FOLLOWING VERDICT ON THE SUBMITTED QUESTIONS:
Question No. 1: Does Plaintiff prevail on his retaliation claim against Defendant Carrillo?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(If you answered yes, continue to Question No. 2. If you answered no, proceed to the last page and date, sign, and return this verdict.)
Question No. 2: What is the amount of damages you award to Plaintiff from Defendant Carrillo?
$______________
(Continue to Question No. 3.)
Question No. 3: Does Plaintiff prevail on his punitive damages claim against Defendant Carrillo?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(If you answered yes to Question No. 1, continue to Question No. 4. If you answered no to Question No. 1, proceed to the last page and date, sign, and return this verdict.)
Question No. 4: Did Defendant Carrillo have reason to believe that the incident of October 14, 2009, involving Plaintiff Silva and inmate Suastegui, could be gang-related?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 5.)
Question No. 5: Did Defendant Carrillo have a reasonable penological justification to initiate an investigation into the incident of October 14, 2009, involving Plaintiff Silva and inmate Suastegui, in order to determine if this incident was gang-related?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 6.)
Question No. 6: Did Defendant Carrillo know that Silva had been engaged in First Amendment protected activity before initiating this investigation?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 7.)
Question No. 7: Did Defendant Carrillo reasonably gather evidence in order to determine whether the incident of October 14, 2009, was related to gang activity?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 8.)
Question No. 8: Did Defendant Carrillo reasonably gather evidence in order to determine whether Silva was a prison gang associate?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 9.)
Question No. 9: Did Defendant Carrillo reasonably submit evidence to the CDCR Office of Correctional Safety for review and confirmation of Silva's gang validation?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Date, sign, and return this verdict.)
Dated this _____ day of _________ 2016.
______________________________
Presiding Juror
VERDICT FORM — DEFENDANT GUZMAN
WE THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FIND THE FOLLOWING VERDICT ON THE SUBMITTED QUESTIONS:
Question No. 1: Does Plaintiff prevail on his retaliation claim against Defendant Guzman?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(If you answered yes, continue to Question No. 2. If you answered no, proceed to the last page and date, sign, and return this verdict.)
Question No. 2: What is the amount of damages you award to Plaintiff from Defendant Guzman?
$______________
(Continue to Question No. 3.)
Question No. 3: Does Plaintiff prevail on his punitive damages claim against Defendant Guzman?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(If you answered yes to Question No. 1, continue to Question No. 4. If you answered no to Question No. 1, proceed to the last page and date, sign, and return this verdict.)
Question No. 4: Did Defendant Guzman have reason to believe that the incident of October 14, 2009, involving Plaintiff Silva and inmate Suastegui, could be gang-related?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 5.)
Question No. 5: Did Defendant Guzman have a reasonable penological justification to initiate an investigation into the incident of October 14, 2009, involving Plaintiff Silva and inmate Suastegui, in order to determine if this incident was gang-related?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 6.)
Question No. 6: Did Defendant Guzman know that Silva had been engaged in First Amendment protected activity before initiating this investigation?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 7.)
Question No. 7: Did Defendant Guzman reasonably gather evidence in order to determine whether the incident of October 14, 2009, was related to gang activity?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 8.)
Question No. 8: Did Defendant Guzman reasonably gather evidence in order to determine whether Silva was a prison gang associate?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Continue to Question No. 9.)
Question No. 9: Did Defendant Guzman reasonably submit evidence to the CDCR Office of Correctional Safety for review and confirmation of Silva's gang validation?
Answer: ____ YES ____ NO
(Date, sign, and return this verdict.)
Dated this _____ day of _________ 2016.
______________________________
Presiding Juror
VERDICT FORM — PUNITIVE DAMAGES
WE THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FIND THE FOLLOWING VERDICT ON THE SUBMITTED QUESTIONS:
[Question No. 1: What is the amount of punitive damages you award to Plaintiff from Defendant Deleon?
$______________
(Continue to Question No. 2.)]
[Question No. 2: What is the amount of punitive damages you award to Plaintiff from Defendant Carrillo?
$______________
(Continue to Question No. 3.)]
[Question No. 3: What is the amount of punitive damages you award to Plaintiff from Defendant Guzman?
$______________]
(Please date, sign, and return this verdict.)
Dated this _____ day of _________ 2016.
______________________________
Presiding Juror
