DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Eric Wheeler, a state prisoner in this civil rights action, is represented by attorneys Mordecai D. Boone and Daniel H. Solomon of Dentons US LLP. Defendant Byron Mui is represented by attorney Thomas P. Feher of LeBeau-Thelen, LLP. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e), the court now issues its amended final pretrial order.
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 25, 2012. This action is proceeding against defendant for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff's claim arises out of medical treatment received in January 2011, at Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield, California.
The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this federal civil rights action. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper because the conduct allegedly occurred in this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
The parties demand a trial by jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). The trial of this matter is scheduled to commence at
Plaintiff objects to the introduction of evidence related to his current prison sentence, prior convictions and disciplinary record. Defendant reserves the right to offer evidence regarding plaintiff's prior felony sentences, including the felony conviction for which he is currently incarcerated.
Plaintiff also objects to introduction of evidence related to the payment of his medical expenses by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and whether any monetary award would be paid by the State or through taxpayer funds.
Plaintiff further objects to the introduction of testimony relating to medical malpractice, the standard of care and whether defendant's treatment of plaintiff conformed to that standard, medical causation, and medical negligence. Similarly, he objects to any testimony regarding defendant's state of mind, intent, motive, and reasonable cause. Defendant has engaged the services of two experts who intend to offer testimony regarding the applicable standard of care, whether defendant's treatment met this standard, and whether any act or omission by defendant caused any of plaintiff's alleged injuries.
Additionally, plaintiff requests that the DVD of a January 24, 2011, interview of him related to the use of force against him be admitted as evidence of his leg injury. Defendant objects to the introduction of the DVD as irrelevant.
None.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000, general damages in the amount of $100,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $650,000. He also seeks declaratory relief.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of plaintiff's constitutional by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). To prevail on his medical care claim, plaintiff must demonstrate a link between actions or omissions of defendant and the violation of his Eighth Amendment rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); Lemire v. California Dep't of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 711 F.3d 941, 967-68 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010).
While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles plaintiff to medical care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff must show (1) "a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," and (2) that "the defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent." Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096).
The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor would find important and worthy of comment or treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily activities, and/or the existence of chronic or substantial pain are indications of a serious medical need, which is the objective element of an Eighth Amendment claim. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Deliberate indifference, which is the subjective element of an Eighth Amendment claim, is shown by "(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference." Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. "Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1977); Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-88; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.
Finally, "[a] difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner — or between medical professionals — concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference." Snow, 681 F.3d at 987 (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23 (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Rather, plaintiff "must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health." Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, treatment decisions based on budgetary concerns do not shield prison officials from liability for deliberate indifference. Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that "[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental and emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 of Title 18)." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The physical injury "need not be significant but must be more than de minimis." Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002). Accord Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2008). The physical injury requirement applies only to claims for mental or emotional injuries and does not bar claims for compensatory, nominal, or punitive damages. Oliver, 289 F.3d at 630.
Plaintiff has the burden of proving what, if any, punitive damages should be awarded by a preponderance of the evidence. Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions § 5.5 (2008). The jury must find that defendant's conduct was "motivated by evil motive or intent, or . . . involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1986). Acts or omissions which are malicious, wanton, or oppressive support an award of punitive damages. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807-08 (9th Cir. 2005).
Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 provide that evidence of a witness's prior felony conviction or instance of conduct demonstrating a propensity to lie may be used to impeach that witness's testimony.
The court previously granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Alison, Ancheta, Duck, Loftis, Lowder, Murrieta, Neubarth, and Ross on all claims. Consequently, these defendants have been dismissed from this action.
The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including rebuttal and impeachment witnesses.
Defendant intends to call the following witnesses:
Additionally, defendant reserves the right to call the following witnesses:
The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at trial.
Plaintiff indicates that he may use defendant's answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents.
Defendant may use excerpts from plaintiff's deposition transcript, including exhibits attached thereto. Defendant may also use other relevant discovery and evidence exchanged by the parties.
Plaintiff has filed motions in limine, and reserves the right to file additional motions in limine.
Defendant may file motions in limine, as well as a potential motion for judgment as a matter of law.
None.
As noted above, defendants Alison, Ancheta, Duck, Loftis, Lowder, Murrieta, Neubarth, and Ross have been dismissed from this action.
None. Counsel for defendant shall notify the court whether he believes that a settlement conference prior to trial would be beneficial.
None.
Defendant requests that the punitive damages phase of the trial, if any, be bifurcated. Plaintiff opposes bifurcation.
The court has denied plaintiff's request for the appointment of an impartial expert by separate order.
Plaintiff believes that the number of experts called by defendant should be limited, and has/will file a motion in limine on the issue.
None.
Defense counsel will retain the exhibits pending a decision on appeal.
Any party may file a motion in limine, which is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence in a particular area. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). In the case of a jury trial, the court's ruling gives plaintiff and defendant's counsel advance notice of the scope of certain evidence so that admissibility is settled before attempted use of the evidence before the jury. Id. at 1111-12 (quotation marks omitted).
Any motion in limine must be served on the other party, and filed with the court by
Any opposition to a motion in limine must be served on the other party, and filed with the court by
Motions in limine will be heard on
The court does not favor the filing of motions in limine addressing evidentiary issues that may not actually arise at trial. Moreover, motions in limine often cannot be ruled upon until other evidence has been admitted at trial and the context for the evidence in question is established.
The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file a trial brief. If the parties wish to submit a trial brief, they must do so on or before
The court will prepare the verdict form, which the parties will have the opportunity to review on the morning of trial. If the parties wish to submit a proposed verdict form, they must do so on or before
The court will prepare the jury instructions, which the parties will have the opportunity to review on the morning of trial. Defendant shall file proposed jury instructions as provided in Local Rule 163 on or before
The parties shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions to the extent possible. Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions SHALL be used where the subject of the instruction is covered by a model instruction. Otherwise, BAJI or CACI instructions SHALL be used where the subject of the instruction is covered by BAJI or CACI. All instructions shall be short, concise, understandable, and neutral and accurate statements of the law. Argumentative or formula instructions will not be given and must not be submitted. Quotations from legal authorities without reference to the issues at hand are unacceptable.
The parties shall, by italics or underlining, designate any modification of instructions from statutory or case authority, or any pattern or form instruction, such as the Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions, BAJI, CACI, or any other source of pattern instructions. The parties must specifically state the modification made to the original form instruction and the legal authority supporting the modification.
The court will not accept a mere list of numbers of form instructions from the Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions, CACI, BAJI, or other instruction forms. The proposed jury instructions must be in the form and sequence which the parties desire to be given to the jury. All blanks to form instructions must be completed. Irrelevant or unnecessary portions of form instructions must be omitted.
All jury instructions shall indicate the party submitting the instruction (e.g., plaintiff or defendant), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the instruction describing the subject matter, the text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting the instruction. Defendant shall provide the court with a copy as well as a clean copy (without number, title or authority) of his proposed jury instructions via e-mail at: dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov.
Proposed voir dire questions, if any, shall be filed on or before
The parties may serve and file a non-argumentative, brief statement of the case which is suitable for reading to the jury at the outset of jury selection on or before
The original and two copies of all trial exhibits, along with exhibit lists, shall be submitted to Courtroom Deputy Renee Gaumnitz no later than
Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. The court will strictly enforce the requirements of this pretrial order, and counsel and parties are subject to sanctions for failure to fully comply with this order and its requirements. The court will modify the pretrial order "only to prevent manifest injustice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). The court admonishes the parties and counsel to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's Local Rules and orders. Failure to do so will subject the parties and/or counsel to sanctions as the court deems appropriate.
