Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Georgia A. Staton, Bar #004863 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. Suite 800 2901 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012 602-263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Kenneth Lyon & Towanda Lyon, for Taralyn D. Lyon, v. NO. CIV 03-2306-PHX-JAT

Plaintiffs, JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS; SEPARATELY REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND Estrella Foothills High School STIPULATED PROPOSED FORMS Henry Schmitt, Superintendent of Schools OF VERDICT for Estrella Foothills School, Eric Godfrey, Jerry Nunez, Marty Arambel, Phillip Echeverria, Jeannie Guy, Jerry Kerr, and Gary Mayfield, Defendants. The Parties, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully request this Court give the following Jury Instructions: 1. Instructions at the end of the case from the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions: 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5; 3.6; and 3.7. 2. Burden of Proof Instructions from the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction: 5.1 and 5.3. 3. Concluding Instructions from the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions: 4.1; 4.2; 4.3 and 4.4.

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 57

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 1 of 14

4.

Damage Jury Instructions from the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions: 7.6.

Each Party separately requests that this Court give the attached Jury Instructions at the close of all evidence as well. To the extent that there is disagreement as to proposed language that disagreement is set forth. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of March, 2006.

COLLINS & COLLINS, LLP

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

By

s/Joseph E. Collins Joseph E. Collins 10801 N. 32 nd Street Phoenix, Arizona 85028 Attorneys for Plaintiff

By

s/Georgia A. Staton Georgia A. Staton 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendant

ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-filed this 17 th day of March, 2006 with: Clerk of the U.S. District Court District of Arizona COPY e-mailed to: The Hon. James A. Teilborg at: [email protected]

s/Gloria Gray

2 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 2 of 14

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO.1 The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.

Source of Instruction: Diesel v. Lewisboro 232 F.3 rd 92 (2 nd Cir. 2000)

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION: The instruction contains a conclusory characterization of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and does not instruct as to what "similarly situated" is in a "class of one" claim. In a "class of one" claim the "level of similarity proved between plaintiffs and the persons with whom they compare themselves must be extremely high." Lotto v. Hamden Board of Education, 400 F.Supp.2d 451,455 (D. Conn 2005). Furthermore, Defendants' Requested Instructions numbers two and three are a more comprehensive and accurate statement of the law.

GIVEN: ______ REFUSED: ______ MODIFIED _________

3 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 3 of 14

DEFENDANTS' REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO. 1 VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS-- ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

On Plaintiff's claim that her right to equal protection was violated, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following by a preponderance of the evidence as to each Defendant: 1. 2. 3. The act or omission of the Defendant was intentional; The Defendant acted under color of law; and The act or omission of the Defendant was the proximate cause of the deprivation of Taralyn Lyon's rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If you find that each of these things has been proved against a Defendant, your verdict should be for the plaintiff and against that Defendant. On the other hand, if any of these things has not been proved against that Defendant, your verdict should be for the Defendant.

SOURCE: Model Jury Instruction No. 11.1, 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals.

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS:

GIVEN: REFUSED: MODIFIED:

4 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 4 of 14

DEFENDANTS' REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO. 2 The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants treated her differently than other similarly situated students when she was suspended for consuming alcohol on campus. She claims that this treatment was a violation of her constitutional right to equal protection under the laws. Plaintiff must prove: 1. A Defendant treated her differently than other similarly situated students; The difference in treatment was intentional. There is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.

2. 3.

If the Plaintiff has not proved each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, your verdict must be for the Defendant.

Source of Instruction: Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9 th Cir. 2004).

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION: Plaintiff request the instruction reads The Plaintiff claims that tile Defendants treated her differently than other similarly situated students when she was suspended for consuming alcohol on campus. She claims that this treatment was a violation of her constitutional right to equal protection under the laws. Plaintiff must prove: 1. A Defendant treated her differently than other similarly situated students;

5 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 5 of 14

2. The difference in treatment was intentional. 3.No rational person could regard the circumstances of the plaintiff to differ from those of a comparator to a degree that would justify the differential treatment on the basis of a legitimate governmental policy. 5. the similarity in circumstances and difference in treatment are sufficient to exclude the possibility that the defendant acted on the basis of a mistake If the Plaintiff has not proved each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, your verdict must be for the Defendant. Source: Lotto v. Hamden Board of Education 400 f.Supp 2d 451 (D. Conn 2005) citing Neilson v. D'Angelis, 409 F.2d 100, at 105 (2 nd Cir. 2002).

GIVEN: REFUSED: MODIFIED:

6 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 6 of 14

DEFENDANTS' REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO. 3

The Equal Protection Clause does not require that similarly situated individuals be treated identically. Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant engaged in intentionally improper conduct, when discipline was imposed on Plaintiff.

Source of Instruction: Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9 th Cir. 2004); McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 835 (9 th Cir. 1990).

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION:

GIVEN: REFUSED: MODIFIED:

7 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 7 of 14

DEFENDANTS' REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO. 4

The principle of equal protection guarantees equal laws, not equal results.

Source of Instruction: McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 835 (9 th Cir. 1990); Administration v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 273, 99 S.Ct. 2282 (1979)

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION:

Plaintiff request the instruction reads The principle of equal protection guarantees equal or evenhanded application of the laws, not equal results.

GIVEN: REFUSED: MODIFIED:

8 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 8 of 14

DEFENDANTS' REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO. 5

Even if the Defendant treated Plaintiff Taralyn Lyon differently from other similarly situated students, Defendant is not liable if Defendant had a rational basis for the manner in which he treated her. Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant acted maliciously, irrationally or arbitrarily. If the Plaintiff has not proven this element, your verdict must be for the Defendants.

Source of Instruction: Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9 th Cir. 2004); McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 835 (9 th Cir. 1990).

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION:

GIVEN: REFUSED: MODIFIED:

9 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 9 of 14

DEFENDANTS' REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO. 6

A school board member is liable only if he/she knew or reasonably should have known that the action he/she took as a board member violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiff or if he/she took the action with malicious intent to cause deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student.

Source of Instruction: Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992 (1975)

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION:

GIVEN: REFUSED: MODIFIED:

1596380_1

10 Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 10 of 14

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

DEFENDANTS' REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO. 7 DAMAGES FOR DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

If you find for the Plaintiff on her equal protection claim, you must determine Plaintiff's damages. Plaintiff has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Damages means the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate Taralyn Lyon for the deprivation of civil rights proximately caused by the Defendant. You should consider the following: The nature and extent of Plaintiff Taralyn Lyon's injuries. The mental, physical, emotional pain and suffering experienced and which with reasonable probability will be experienced in the future by Plaintiff Taralyn Lyon. If you find for the Plaintiff, but you find that the plaintiff has failed to prove actual damages, you shall return an award of nominal damages not to exceed one dollar.

Source of Instruction: Model Jury Instruction No. 11.4 and 7.2, 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals.

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION:

GIVEN: REFUSED: MODIFIED:

11 Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 11 of 14

Georgia A. Staton, Bar #004863 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 602-263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Kenneth Lyon & Towanda Lyon, for Taralyn D. Lyon, Plaintiff, v. Estrella Foothills High School Henry Schmidt, Superintendent of Schools for Estrella Foothills School, Eric Godfrey, Jerry Nunez, M arty Arambel, Phillip Echeverria, Jeannie Guy, Jerry Kerr, and Gary Mayfield, Defendants. NO. CIV 03-2306-PHX-JAT

We the jury duly empaneled upon our oaths, find in favor of Plaintiff Taralyn Lyon and against the following Defendant on Plaintiff's claim that she was denied equal protection and find the damages to be $___________. ____ Henry Schmitt ____ Eric Godfrey ____ Jerry Nunez ____ Marty Arambel ____ Phillip Echeverria ____ Jeannie Guy ____ Jerry Kerr ____ Gary Mayfield (Check any that apply.) Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT Document 57

Filed 03/17/2006 12

Page 12 of 14

______________________________ ____________________________ _____________________________ Foreperson

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 57

Filed 03/17/2006 13

Page 13 of 14

Georgia A. Staton, Bar #004863 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 602-263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Kenneth Lyon & Towanda Lyon, for Taralyn D. Lyon, Plaintiffs, v. Estrella Foothills High School Henry Schmidt, Superintendent of Schools for Estrella Foothills School, Eric Godfrey, Jerry Nunez, M arty Arambel, Phillip Echeverria, J annie Guy, Jerry Kerr, and Gary Mayfield, Defendants. NO. CIV 03-2306-PHX-JAT

We the jury duly empaneled upon our oaths, find in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Taralyn Lyon on Plaintiff's claim that she was denied equal protection.

______________________________ ____________________________ _____________________________ Foreperson

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 57

Filed 03/17/2006 14

Page 14 of 14