Vann v. Hobbs et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 182 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 183 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 5/2/13. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
LAMONT CLAYTON VANN,
RAY HOBBS, et al,
Pending is Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Docket #182) and Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine (Docket #183). The Court makes the following rulings:
Defendants’ Motion seeking:
(1) to exclude any reference to Plaintiff’s alleged cell conditions in other areas of the
Varner Supermax Unit, etc,- denied;
(2) to exclude any reference to Inmate Horace Martin- denied;
(3) to exclude testimony and/or documentary evidence regarding Plaintiff’s alleged
fungal infection- denied;
(4) to exclude evidence and/or testimony regarding grievances filed about cell cleanliness
outside the December 9, 2010 through February 22, 2011 timeline- granted;
(5) to exclude evidence and/or testimony regarding the denial of showers as punishmentgranted;
(6) to exclude testimony and/or reference to inmate affidavits- the Court will rule on this
evidence at trial.
Plaintiff’s Motion seeking:
(1) to exclude any reference to the Court’s prior rulings on Defendants’ motionsDefendants do not object to this request.
(2) to exclude any reference to Plaintiff’s prior convictions and the prior convictions of
Plaintiff’s inmate witnesses- Defendants do not object to this request.
(3) to exclude any reference to Plaintiff’s prior bad acts and the prior bad acts of any of
Plaintiff’s inmate witnesses- Defendants do not object to this request as it relates to any bad acts
or disciplinaries received by Plaintiff prior to December, 2010. However, Defendants may be
allowed to inquire about such incidents if the door is opened by the Plaintiff. The Court will rule
on this evidence if it arises during trial.
(4) to exclude any reference to Defendants’ financial status and whether monetary
damages would be paid by individual defendants or state- granted;
(5) to order the ADC to provide civilian clothes for the Plaintiff and his inmate
witnesses-denied. Plaintiff may wear civilian clothes but the Defendant is not obligated to
provide the clothes for him.
In conclusion, Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Docket #182) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Docket #183) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2013.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?