William Ray Espoinoza v. Stanley Sniff, an individual;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM RAY ESPOINOZA,
Plaintiff,
and
WILLIAM ESPINOZA, Jr.; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STANLEY SNIFF, an individual; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-56890
D.C. No.
5:14-cv-00085-JGB-SP
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
JUL 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --