Bindinglaw

US-CA9 · jury_instructions

9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 9.34

Particular Rights—Fourteenth Amendment—Pretrial Detainee’s

activein force · 2026-08-20 – presentas-observed

Claim Re Conditions of Confinement/Medical Care

The plaintiff [name] has brought a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution against the defendant [name]. The plaintiff [name] asserts the defendant [name] failed to provide [safe conditions of confinement] [needed medical care].

To prevail on this claim, the plaintiff [name] has the burden of proving each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

First, the defendant [name] made an intentional decision regarding [the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined] [the denial of needed medical care];

Second, the [conditions of confinement] [denial of needed medical care] put the plaintiff [name] at substantial risk of suffering serious harm;

Third, the defendant [name] did not take reasonable available measures to abate or reduce the risk of serious harm, even though a reasonable officer under the circumstances would have understood the high degree of risk involved—making the consequences of the defendant [name]’s conduct obvious; and

Fourth, by not taking such measures the defendant [name] caused the plaintiff [name]’s injuries.

With respect to the third element, the defendant [name]’s conduct must be objectively unreasonable.

Provenance

Source
ce9.uscourts.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-20
Edition
2026-08-20
Content hash
652a29d07e70971cac7efe25c3c830b30e9bbcb8334f1730bb270682f91cbde1
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.