Exmundo v. Scribner et al

Filing 153

ORDER Regarding Defendants' 106 Motion in Limine; ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 138 Motion in Limine; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 113 Request for Appointment of Medical Expert signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/26/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

EMELITO EXMUNDO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)_
)

1:06cv00205 AWI DLB PC
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION IN LIMINE
(Document 106)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN LIMINE
(Document 138)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF A
MEDICAL EXPERT
(Document 113)

Plaintiff Emelito Exmundo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action. This action for damages and equitable relief is proceeding
against (1) Defendants Bell and Johnson for violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (2)
Defendant Bell for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

23

Trial began on August 26, 2014.

24

On January 14, 2014, Defendants filed a motion in limine to (1) preclude Plaintiff from

25

offering opinions about the cause of his past and current medical condition; and (2) prohibit

26

Plaintiff from introducing medical records regarding his injury without explanation by a medical

27

expert. Plaintiff opposed the motion on January 27, 2014.

28
1

1
2
3
4

Plaintiff filed a motion in limine on March 31, 2014, seeking to (1) exclude Defendants’
statements in Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) #3A-05-10-012; and (2) prohibit Defendants from
offering evidence of the prior convictions of Plaintiff and his inmate witnesses. Defendants did
not oppose the motion.

5

A.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine

6
7
8
9
10

Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from (1) offering opinions about the cause of his
past and current medical conditions; and (2) from introducing his medical records without
explanation by a medical expert.
“If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited

11

to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly

12

understanding the witness’s testimony or determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on

13

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” Fed. R.

14

Evid. 701.

15

16
17
18

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. As to Plaintiff’s medical conditions, he may not
testify as to any medical matter which requires scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge, which generally includes any ultimate diagnosis, a cause and effect relationship,
internal injuries, and/or interpretation of x-ray films or other medical records. Fed. R. Evid. 702.

19

However, Plaintiff may testify as to what he saw or felt relating to his medical needs or
20
21
22
23

condition.
As to Plaintiff’s medical records, the records may not be introduced because they are
hearsay and require expert testimony and foundational testimony.

24
25
26
27
28
2

1

B.

2

1.

3
4

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
Defendants’ Statements in the RVR

Plaintiff moves to preclude Defendants from introducing their statements in RVR #3A05-10-012 because the statements are inadmissible hearsay. Plaintiff also contends that the

5

statements are self-serving and lack trustworthiness.
6

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and Defendants may not introduce statements made in

7
8
9

the RVR by declarants who do not testify. However, the statements may be used to refresh
recollection for Defendants who testify, and for impeachment purposes, if necessary.

10

2.

11

Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence of his prior conviction, as well as the prior

12

Prior Convictions

convictions of his two inmate witnesses.

13

Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(A) provides that evidence of a conviction for a crime

14

punishable for more than one year is admissible, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case to attack a

15

witness’s character for truthfulness. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(A). Evidence of a conviction under

16
17

this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the
conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Fed. R. Evid. 609(b).

18

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s commitment offense is a qualifying offense

19

under Rule 609(a)(1)(A) and must be admitted for impeachment purposes subject to Rule 403.
20
21
22
23

However, the Court will only permit Defendants to refer to the fact that Plaintiff is incarcerated
for life without the possibility of parole. Defendants will not be permitted to discuss Plaintiff’s
commitment offense (murder). The same analysis applies to the prior convictions of Plaintiff’s

24

witnesses. Defendants may only refer to the fact that the inmate witnesses are incarcerated for a

25

felony.

26
27

Insofar as Plaintiff’s sentence may be independently admissible for purposes of damages,
the Court will reserve ruling on the issue.

28
3

1
2
3
4

C.

Plaintiff’s Request for a Medical Expert
In opposing Defendants’ motion in limine regarding Plaintiff’s medical records, Plaintiff

requests that this Court appoint a medical expert.
The Court has the discretion to appoint an expert and to apportion costs, including the

5

apportionment of costs to one side. Fed. R. Evid. 706; Ford ex rel. Ford v. Long Beach Unified
6
7
8
9

School Dist., 291 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002); Walker v. American Home Shield Long Term
Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff does not explain why he believes that a medical expert is necessary. In any

10

event, the Court does not require special assistance in deciding the issues. Ford ex rel. Ford, 291

11

F.3d at 1090; Walker, 180 F.3d at 1071. Further, where, as here, the cost would likely be

12

apportioned to the government, the Court should exercise caution. The Court has a burgeoning

13

docket of civil rights cases filed by prisoners proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The facts

14

of this case are no more extraordinary and the legal issues involved no more complex than those

15

found in the majority of the cases now pending before the Court.

16
17
18

Moreover, Rule 706 is not a means to avoid the in forma pauperis statute and its
prohibition against using public funds to pay for the expenses of witnesses, Manriquez v.
Huchins, 2012 WL 5880431, *12 (E.D.Cal. 2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted), nor

19

does Rule 706 contemplate court appointment and compensation of an expert witness as an
20
21
22
23

advocate for Plaintiff, Faletogo v. Moya, 2013 WL 524037, *2 (S.D.Cal. 2013) (quotation marks
omitted).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of an expert witness is DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26

Dated: August 26, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
4