Fill and Sign the Jury Instruction 2241 Pretrial Detainee Alleging Excessive Force Form

2.4.1 Civil Rights 42 USC § 1983 Claims Fourteenth Amendment Claim Pretrial Detainee Alleging Excessive Force In this case the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants, while acting “under color” of state law, intentionally deprived the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that while the Defendants were acting under color of authority of the State of [as corrections officers at the County Jail] they intentionally violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to be free from the use of excessive force against [him] [her] while being detained as a pretrial detainee. You are instructed that the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does entitle anyone who is arrested and detained under state law not to be subjected to excessive force while being detained. This includes, of course, the right not to be assaulted or beaten without legal justification. The law further provides that a person may sue in this court for an award of money damages against anyone who, “under color” of state law or custom, intentionally violates the Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution of the United States. In order to prevail on this claim, the Plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: First: That the Defendant intentionally committed acts constituting the use of excessive force against the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was in custody as a pretrial detainee; Second: That in so doing the Defendant acted ”under color” of the authority of the State of; and Third: That the Defendant’s acts were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by the Plaintiff. [In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues.] [The parties have stipulated or agreed that the Defendant acted "under color" of state law and you should, therefore, accept that fact as proven.] [A state or local official acts "under color" of the authority of the state not only when the official acts within the limits of lawful authority, but also when the official acts without or beyond the bounds of lawful authority. In order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color" of state law, however, the unlawful acts must be done while the official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of official duty; that is, the unlawful acts must be an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because of the position held by the official.] As previously stated, every pretrial detainee has the right not to e subjected to the use of excessive force against [him] [her]. On the other hand, not every push or shove, even if it later seems unnecessary, will give rise to a constitutional violation; and an officer always has the right, and the duty, to use such reasonable force as is necessary under the circumstances to maintain order and assure compliance with jail regulations. Whether or not any force used in this instance was excessive is an issue for you to decide on the basis of that degree of force, if any, that a reasonable and prudent corrections officer would have applied in the same circumstances disclosed in this case. You should also consider whether such force, if any, was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. In making that decision you should consider the amount of force used in relationship to the need presented; the motive of the officer; the extent of the injury inflicted; and any effort made to temper the severity of the force used. Of course, when jail officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, the result would be unconstitutional regardless of the significance of the injury to the detainee. If you should decide for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, you must then decide the issue of the Plaintiff’s damages. For damages to be the proximate or legal result of a constitutional deprivation, it must be shown that, except for that constitutional deprivation, such damages would not have occurred. In considering the issue of the Plaintiff's damages, you are instructed that you should assess the amount you find to be justified by a preponderance of the evidence as full, just and reasonable compensation for all of the Plaintiff's damages, no more and no less. Compensatory damages are not allowed as a punishment and must not be imposed or increased to penalize the Defendant. Also, compensatory damages must not be based on speculation or guesswork because it is only actual damages that are recoverable. On the other hand, compensatory damages are not restricted to actual loss of time or money; they cover both the mental and physical aspects of injury - - tangible and intangible. Thus, no evidence of the value of such intangible things as physical and emotional pain and mental anguish has been or need be introduced. In that respect it is not value you are trying to determine, but an amount that will fairly compensate the Plaintiff for those claims of damage. There is no exact standard to be applied; any such award should be fair and just in the light of the evidence. You should consider the following elements of damage, to the extent you find them proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and no others: (a) Physical as well as emotional pain and mental anguish. [(b) Punitive damages, if any (as explained in the Court’s instructions)] [The Plaintiff also claims that the acts of the Defendant were done with malice and reckless indifference to the Plaintiff's federally protected rights so as to entitle the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. If you find for the Plaintiff, and if you further find that the Defendant did act with malice, or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, the law would allow you, in your discretion, to assess punitive damages against the Defendant as punishment and as a deterrent to others. If you find that punitive damages should be assessed against the Defendant, you may consider the financial resources of the Defendant in fixing the amount of such damages [and you may assess punitive damages against one or more of the Defendants, and not others, or against more than one Defendant in different amounts].] 2.4.1 Civil Rights 42 USC § 1983 Claims Fourteenth Amendment Claim Pretrial Detainee Alleging Excessive Force SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence: 1. That the Defendant intentionally committed acts constituting the use of excessive force against the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was in custody as a pretrial detainee? Answer Yes or No 2. That the Defendant’s acts were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by the Plaintiff? Answer Yes or No [Note: If you answered No to either of the preceding questions, you need not consider the remaining questions.] 3. That the Plaintiff should be awarded damages to compensate for physical and emotional pain and mental anguish? Answer Yes or No If you answered Yes, in what amount? $ 4. That the Defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s federally protected rights and that punitive damages should be assessed against the Defendant? Answer Yes or No If you answered Yes, in what amount? $ SO SAY WE ALL. Foreperson DATED: ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTS This instruction incorporates both objective as well as subjective criteria as the standard to apply in determining “excessiveness” under the Fourteenth Amendment. ee Wilson v. Williams, 83 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 1996).