Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-1700 Fax: (602) 200-7846 [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for Defendants Brad Weekley, Penny Dahlberg, Guy Gorman and Dave Boatwright UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA James W. Field, Plaintiff, v. County of La Paz, et al., Defendants. LA PAZ COUNTY DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CV 03-2214-PHX SRB

La Paz County Defendants, through counsel, submit these supplemental jury instructions for the Courts review. //

//

//

1641335.1

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 212

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1641335.1

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL JURY INSTRUCTION #1 In general, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the deprivation of a protected property interest. But it is well established that due process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception unrelated to time, place and circumstances. Rather, due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. In some circumstances, where a State must act quickly, or where it would be impractical to provide pre-deprivation process, post-deprivation process satisfies the requirements of he due process clause. Plaintiff is not alleging that there was a lack of post-deprivation process.

Source: Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985); Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924, 930 (1997) (quoting Cafeteria & Rest. Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 (1961); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972); FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 240 (1988). GIVEN REFUSED MODIFIED GIVEN AS MODIFIED

2

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 212

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1641335.1

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL JURY INSTRUCTION #2 The evidence in this case need not conclusively establish that the conditions on Plaintiff's property were actually dangerous, only that La Paz County had reasonable grounds for believing that the conditions on Plaintiff's property were dangerous. In other words, the analysis contains both a subjective and objective prong: whoever made the decision to suspend the electrical condition on Plaintiff's property had to subjectively believe that the conditions were dangerous, and their belief had to be reasonable. Source: Patel v. Midland Memorial Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 298 F.3d 333, 339-40 (5th Cir. 2002)(en banc).

GIVEN REFUSED MODIFIED GIVEN AS MODIFIED

3

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 212

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1641335.1

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL JURY INSTRUCTION #3 As a general rule, when government officials have reasonable grounds to believe that the public safety is in immediate jeopardy, no pre-deprivation process is legally due.

Source: Patel v. Midland Memorial Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 298 F.3d 333, 339-40 (5th Cir. 2002)(en banc); Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th Cir. 1997); Caine v. Hardy, 943 F.2d 1406, 1412 (5th Cir. 1991).

GIVEN REFUSED MODIFIED GIVEN AS MODIFIED

4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 212

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1641335.1

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL JURY INSTRUCTION #4 If you find that the electrical conditions on Plaintiff's property posed a health and safety hazard that posed an immediate threat to the public, you must find that the Defendants did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Source: Patel v. Midland Memorial Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 298 F.3d 333, 339-40 (5th Cir. 2002)(en banc); Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th Cir. 1997); Caine v. Hardy, 943 F.2d 1406 (5th Cir. 1991). GIVEN REFUSED MODIFIED GIVEN AS MODIFIED

5

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 212

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1641335.1

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL JURY INSTRUCTION #5 If the La Paz County Defendants had reasonable grounds to believe that there were health and safety hazards on Plaintiff's property that posed an immediate threat to the public, Defendants were not required by law to provide Plaintiff with notice before termination of electrical service.

Source: Patel v. Midland Memorial Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 298 F.3d 333, 339-40 (5th Cir. 2002)(en banc); Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1310 (9th Cir. 1997); Caine v. Hardy, 943 F.2d 1406 (5th Cir. 1991).

GIVEN REFUSED MODIFIED GIVEN AS MODIFIED

6

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 212

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1641335.1

DATED this 12th day of June, 2006. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

BY s/Jennifer L. Holsman John T. Masterson Jennifer L. Holsman 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Brad Weekley, Penny Dahlberg, Guy Gorman and Dave Boatwright COPY of the foregoing mailed via postage prepaid, registered mail, this even date to: James. W. Field PO Box 248 Salome, Arizona 85348 Plaintiff Pro Per s/Colleen Webb

7

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 212

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 7 of 7