CACI 3042 Violation of Prisoner’s Federal Civil Rights—Eighth Amendment—Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

New September 2003; Revised June 2010; Renumbered from CACI No. 3010 December 2010; Renumbered from CACI No. 3013 December 2012

Crowdsource Lawyers

https://crowdsourcelawyers.com/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci

The “official duties” referred to in element 3 must be duties created pursuant to any state, county, or municipal law, ordinance, or regulation. This aspect of color of law most likely will not be an issue for the jury, so it has been omitted to shorten the wording of element 3.

There is law suggesting that the jury should give deference to prison officials in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve discipline and to maintain internal security in a prison. This principle is covered in the final sentence by the term “good faith.”

•Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights. Title 42 United States Code section 1983.

•“Section 1983 claims may be brought in either state or federal court.” (Pitts v. County of Kern (1998) 17 Cal.4th 340, 348 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 823, 949 P.2d 920].)

•“The Constitution ‘does not mandate comfortable prisons,’ but neither does it permit inhumane ones, and it is now settled that ‘the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.’ In its prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments,’ the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may not, for example, use excessive physical force against prisoners. The Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must ‘take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.’ ” (Farmer v. Brennan (1994) 511 U.S. 825, 832 [114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811], internal citations omitted.)

•“[A]pplication of the deliberate indifference standard is inappropriate when authorities use force to put down a prison disturbance. Instead, ‘the question whether the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering ultimately turns on “whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” ’ ” (Hudson v. McMillian (1992) 503 U.S. 1, 6 [112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156], internal citations omitted.)

•“[W]e hold that whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” (Hudson, supra, 503 U.S. at pp. 6–7, internal citations omitted.)

•“[E]xcessive force under the Eighth Amendment does not require proof that an officer enjoyed or otherwise derived pleasure from his or her use of force.” (Hoard v. Hartman (9th Cir. 2018) 904 F.3d 780, 782.)

•“[T]here is ample evidence here that the Supreme Court did not intend its use of ‘maliciously and sadistically’ … to work a substantive change in the law on excessive force beyond requiring intent to cause harm. Chief among this evidence is the fact that the Supreme Court has never addressed ‘maliciously and sadistically’ separately from the specific intent to cause harm. It has even, on one occasion, omitted any mention of ‘maliciously and sadistically’ altogether and simply explained that ‘a purpose to cause harm is needed for Eighth Amendment liability in a [prison] riot case.’ ” (Hoard, supra, 904 F.3d at p. 789.)

•“Whether the prison disturbance is a riot or a lesser disruption, corrections officers must balance the need ‘to maintain or restore discipline’ through force against the risk of injury to inmates. Both situations may require prison officials to act quickly and decisively. Likewise, both implicate the principle that ‘prison administrators … should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.’ ” (Hudson, supra, 503 U.S. at p. 6, internal citations omitted.)

•“We recognize that prison officials have a ‘better grasp’ of the policies required to operate a correctional facility than either judges or juries. For this reason, in excessive force … cases, we instruct juries to defer to prison officials’ judgments in adopting and executing policies needed to preserve discipline and maintain security.” (Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio (9th Cir. 2016) 836 F.3d 1239, 1254, internal citations omitted.)

•“[T]his Court rejected the notion that ‘significant injury’ is a threshold requirement for stating an excessive force claim. … ‘When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm,’ … ‘contemporary standards of decency always are violated … whether or not significant injury is evident. Otherwise, the Eighth Amendment would permit any physical punishment, no matter how diabolic or inhuman, inflicting less than some arbitrary quantity of injury.’ ” (Wilkins v. Gaddy (2010) 559 U.S. 34, 37 [130 S.Ct. 1175, 175 L.Ed.2d 995].)

•“This is not to say that the ‘absence of serious injury’ is irrelevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry. ‘[T]he extent of injury suffered by an inmate is one factor that may suggest “whether the use of force could plausibly have been thought necessary” in a particular situation.’ The extent of injury may also provide some indication of the amount of force applied. … [N]ot ‘every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.’ ‘The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual” punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’ An inmate who complains of a ‘push or shove’ that causes no discernible injury almost certainly fails to state a valid excessive force claim. … [¶] Injury and force, however, are only imperfectly correlated, and it is the latter that ultimately counts.” (Wilkins, supra, 559 U.S. at pp. 37–38, original italics, internal citations omitted.)

•“ ‘[S]uch factors as the need for the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, [and] the extent of injury inflicted,’ are relevant to that ultimate determination. From such considerations inferences may be drawn as to whether the use of force could plausibly have been thought necessary, or instead evinced such wantonness with respect to the unjustified infliction of harm as is tantamount to a knowing willingness that it occur. But equally relevant are such factors as the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the responsible officials on the basis of the facts known to them, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” (Whitley v. Albers (1986) 475 U.S. 312, 321 [106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251], internal citations omitted.)

•“ ‘[T]he appropriate standard for a pretrial detainee’s excessive force claim [under the Fourteenth Amendment] is solely an objective one.’ In contrast, a convicted prisoner’s excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment requires a subjective inquiry into ‘whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’ ” (Rodriguez v. County of L.A. (9th Cir. 2018) 891 F.3d 776, 788, internal citation omitted.)

•“Although claims by pretrial detainees arise under the Fourteenth Amendment and claims by convicted prisoners arise under the Eighth Amendment, our cases do not distinguish among pretrial and postconviction detainees for purposes of the excessive force, conditions of confinement, and medical care deference instructions.” (Shorter v. Baca (9th Cir. 2018) 895 F.3d 1176, 1182, fn. 4.)

•“The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase ‘under “color” of law’ to mean ‘under “pretense” of law.’ A police officer’s actions are under pretense of law only if they are ‘in some way “related to the performance of his official duties.” ’ By contrast, an officer who is ‘ “pursuing his own goals and is not in any way subject to control by [his public employer],” ’ does not act under color of law, unless he ‘purports or pretends’ to do so. Officers who engage in confrontations for personal reasons unrelated to law enforcement, and do not ‘purport[] or pretend[]’ to be officers, do not act under color of law.” (Huffman v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 1998) 147 F.3d 1054, 1058, internal citations omitted.)