9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 9.3

To prevail on a § 1983 claim against the defendant [name of individual defendant], the plaintiff must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

First, the defendant [name] acted under color of state law; and

Second, the [act[s]] [failure to act] of the defendant [name] deprived the plaintiff [name] of particular rights under [the laws of the United States] [the United States Constitution] as explained in later instructions; and

Third, the defendant [name]’s conduct was an actual cause of the claimed injury.

A person acts “under color of state law” when the person acts or purports to act in the performance of official duties under any state, county, or municipal law, ordinance or regulation. [[The parties have stipulated] [I instruct you] that the defendant [name] acted under color of state law.]

The defendant [name]’s conduct is an actual cause of a plaintiff [name]'s injury only if the injury would not have occurred ‘but for' that conduct, and the conduct has a sufficient connection to the result.

If you find the plaintiff has proved each of these elements, and if you find that the plaintiff has proved all the elements the plaintiff is required to prove under Instruction[s] [specify the instruction[s] that deal with the particular right[s]], your verdict should be for the plaintiff [name]. If, on the other hand, you find that the plaintiff [name] has failed to prove any one or more of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant [name].