William Espinoza, Jr. v. Stanley Sniff , 694 F. App'x 575 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JUL 26 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    WILLIAM RAY ESPOINOZA,                           No.   15-56890
    Plaintiff,                         D.C. No.
    5:14-cv-00085-JGB-SP
    and
    WILLIAM ESPINOZA, Jr.; et al.,                   MEMORANDUM*
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    STANLEY SNIFF, an individual; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted July 13, 2017
    Pasadena, California
    Before: REINHARDT, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    Espinoza appeals the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on
    presumptive negligence under California Evidence Code § 669 based on alleged
    violations of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department Corrections Division
    Policy regarding classification and housing, which plaintiffs contend led to the
    death of an inmate.
    California Evidence Code § 669.1 provides that an internal policy cannot be
    the basis of a presumptive negligence instruction unless it “has been formally
    adopted as a statute, as an ordinance of a local governmental entity, . . . or as a
    regulation by an agency of the state pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.”
    There is no indication that the Policy was ever so adopted. Instead, Espinoza points
    out that a state regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 1050) required the jail to
    adopt some policy governing inmate classifications.
    However, an ex ante direction to adopt a general policy that does not specify
    its specific terms is not the same as an ex post adoption of that policy. The
    regulation is thus not an adoption of the Policy as a statute, ordinance, or
    regulation. The Policy therefore cannot be the basis of a presumptive negligence
    instruction, and the district court did not err by refusing to give that instruction.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-56890

Citation Numbers: 694 F. App'x 575

Filed Date: 7/26/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023