9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 9.4

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

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

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

Third, [the supervisory defendant [name] directed subordinate[s] in the [act[s]] [failure to act] that deprived the plaintiff [name] of these rights;]

or

[the supervisory defendant [name] set in motion a series of acts by subordinate[s], or knowingly refused to terminate a series of acts by subordinate[s], that the supervisor knew or reasonably should have known would cause the subordinate[s] to deprive the plaintiff [name] of these rights;]

or

[(a) the supervisory defendant [name] knew that the subordinate[s] were engaging in these act[s] and knew or reasonably should have known that the subordinate[’s][s’] conduct would deprive the plaintiff [name] of these rights; and

(b) the supervisory defendant [name] failed to act to prevent the subordinate[s] from engaging in such conduct;]

or

[(a) the supervisory defendant [name] disregarded the known or obvious consequence that a particular training deficiency or omission would cause [his] [her] [other pronoun] subordinate[s] to violate the plaintiff [name]’s constitutional rights; and

(b) that deficiency or omission actually caused the subordinates to deprive the plaintiff [name] of plaintiff [name]’s constitutional rights;]

or

[the supervisory defendant engaged in conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the deprivation by the subordinate of the rights of others;]

and

Fourth, the supervisory defendant [name]’s conduct was so closely related to the deprivation of the plaintiff [name]’s rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate 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 that] [I instruct you that] the defendant [name] acted under color of state

law.]

If you find the plaintiff [name] has proved each of these elements, and if you find that the plaintiff [name] has proved all the elements [he] [she] [other pronoun] 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].