Raymond Goodlow v. City of El Cajon, 679 F. App'x 566

Background

Raymond Goodlow sued the City of El Cajon and Officer Bonilla under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force; a jury returned a verdict for defendants.
Goodlow appealed the denial of his Rule 59(a) motion and the district court’s jury instructions.
The Ninth Circuit treated Goodlow’s timely appeal from the Rule 59(a) order as an appeal from the final judgment and found appellees were not prejudiced by any notice error.
Central legal dispute concerned whether jury Instructions 13.2–13.4 correctly stated the Fourth Amendment “objective reasonableness” standard and adequately instructed on reasonable mistake, threat/danger, and related factors.
The district court had instructed jurors to evaluate force under an objective-reasonableness standard, to consider what a reasonable officer on the scene would believe, and to consider all circumstances; Goodlow argued the instructions mischaracterized the law and omitted definitions (e.g., “danger,” “threat”).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the instructions fairly and adequately covered the issues, correctly stated the law, and were not misleading or argumentative.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to hear appeal	Goodlow intended to appeal final judgment despite notice naming nonappealable order	Appellees argued the notice error could affect jurisdiction; they fully briefed merits	Court exercised jurisdiction — intent to appeal and no prejudice shown; appeal treated as from final judgment
Instruction 13.3 — objective reasonableness and reasonable mistake	Instruction misstated law by focusing on officer’s beliefs and omitting a "reasonable mistake" phrase; lacked definitions for "danger"/"threat"	Instruction correctly used objective-reasonableness and asked what a reasonable officer on scene would believe; omission did not change meaning	Affirmed — instruction accurate, fairly presented law, and did not mislead jurors
Instruction 13.4 — scope and focus	(Implied) Instruction was improper, argumentative, or unduly emphasized certain factors	Instruction provided necessary expansion of concepts from 13.2 and aided jurors in applying law to facts	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; 13.4 supported by evidence, not misleading or cumulative

Key Cases Cited

Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2005) (appeal may be treated as from final judgment when intent to appeal can be inferred)
Montes v. United States, 37 F.3d 1347 (9th Cir. 1994) (notice errors do not deprive court of jurisdiction if intent is clear and appellee not prejudiced)
Stuart v. United States, 23 F.3d 1483 (9th Cir. 1994) (same principle on jurisdictional inference)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force claims under Fourth Amendment analyzed using objective reasonableness)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (factual determinations by officers must be reasonable)
Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, 717 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for jury instructions: de novo as to legal correctness)
United States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir. 1992) (trial courts have substantial latitude in tailoring jury instructions)
United States v. Soulard, 730 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1984) (deference to district court formulation of instructions)
United States v. Echeverry, 759 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1985) (instructions adequate if they fairly cover issues presented)
Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (instruction review: supported by evidence, fairly and adequately covers issues, correctly states law, not misleading)
Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2005) (party entitled to instruction on its theory if supported by law and evidence)
Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (same principle regarding entitlement to jury instructions)
Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 621 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2010) (party cannot claim error for failure to give an instruction it never offered)