Tilei v. Wan et al

Filing 171

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 158 159 160 Motions In Limine signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/26/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

T. WAN, et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:06-cv-00776 JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(Docs. 158, 159, 160)

17
18

On April 13, 2012, the parties filed their motions in limine. (Docs. 158, 159, 160) Plaintiff

19

filed one motion (Doc. 160), which was not opposed and Defendants filed two motions (Docs. 158,

20

159), only one which was opposed. (Doc. 163) The motions were submitted without argument. L. R.

21

230(l).

22

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine

23

In his motion, Plaintiff argues that his felony convictions for attempted murder of a police

24

officer and assault with a firearm should be excluded. (Doc. 163 at 2) Plaintiff argues that this

25

evidence is entitled to little weight and would be highly prejudicial. Id. On the other hand, the very

26

nature of Plaintiff’s claim, that he suffered retaliation—including transfer to a different prison—

27

reveals, and will reveal to the jury, the fact that Plaintiff has been convicted of a felony. Thus, for the

28
1

1

Court, the question is not whether there will be prejudice caused by introducing the felony conviction

2

but whether the nature of the crimes for which was convicted would be overly prejudicial.

3

Federal Rules of Evidence 609(a) provides in relevant part,

4

The following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness by
evidence of a criminal conviction:
(1)
for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by
imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:
(A)
must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal
case in which the witness is not a defendant; . . .

5
6
7
8

However, generally, a conviction will not be admitted if more than 10 years have passed since the time

9

the witness was released from confinement on the charge. However, the 10-year presumptive bar does

10

not apply if the witness remains in custody for the charge. Nevertheless, in either situation, the

11

conviction may not be admitted if its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. F.R.E.

12

609(b).

13

Here, Plaintiff continues to be in custody for the felony convictions at issue. Thus, the Federal

14

Rules of Evidence 609 does not preclude introduction of this evidence. Notably, Defendants have not

15

opposed the motion but indicated that they intended to introduce evidence of Plaintiff’s felony

16

convictions in the pretrial statement for purposes of impeachment. (Doc. 147 at 6, 12) The Court has

17

no information that Defendants seek to introduce the nature of the underlying crimes.

18

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 160) is DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s felony convictions,

19

for which he is still in custody, may be admitted for impeachment purposes. However, Defendants

20

SHALL NOT introduce any evidence related to the nature of these offenses without first raising this

21

issue with the Court outside of the presence of the jury.

22

Defendants’ Motions in Limine

23

A.

24

Defendants note that several of Plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed. Thus, they move the

Motion to exclude evidence related to dismissed claims

25

Court to exclude evidence related to these dismissed claims. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion

26

though Defendant argues that Plaintiff has identified specific claims in the pretrial statement that are

27

unrelated to the active claims.

28
2

1

As Defendants note, only relevant evidence is admissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402.

2

Therefore, the motion (Doc. 158) is GRANTED and Plaintiff SHALL NOT seek to introduce evidence

3

as to claims that have been dismissed.

4

B.

Motion to exclude the identity of the confidential informant

5

At the heart of this case is Plaintiff’s claim that he was placed in administrative segregation and,

6

ultimately, transferred to a different prison in retaliation. Defendants claim that they received an

7

anonymous note indicating that Plaintiff would be stabbed if he remained in general population. They

8

claim further that Officer Goss conducted an investigation and talked to an inmate who confirmed the

9

content of the note. This inmate has not been identified and has been described only as a confidential

10
11

informant.
Plaintiff claims that there was never a true threat to his safety and that the note and the alleged

12

investigation was a ruse to place him in administrative segregation and to transfer him to a different

13

prison. Thus, he seeks to examine Officer Goss as to his investigatory efforts. Defendants are

14

concerned that in this examination, Plaintiff will seek to uncover the identity of the confidential

15

informant and that this will endanger the informant because he will be identified as a “snitch.”

16

Here, given the lack of opposition to the motion, the Court is hard-pressed to determine how the

17

identity of the informant is pertinent to the trial issues. On the other hand, the Court does not doubt

18

that an inmate who informs on another inmate would likely be the target of violence if the informant’s

19

conduct became known. Thus, in the face of this danger and with no explanation of how the

20

information would be probative at trial, the motion (Doc. 159), is GRANTED.
ORDER

21
22

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

23

1.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 160) to preclude the introduction of evidence that he

24

has been conviction of felonies, is DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s felony convictions for which he

25

remains incarcerated may be introduced but Defendants SHALL NOT refer the underlying nature of

26

the crimes in the presence of the jury without first raising this issue with the Court;

27
28

2.

Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning dismissed claims (Doc.

158) is GRANTED;
3

3.

1
2

Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning dismissed claims (Doc.

159) is GRANTED.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated:

April 26, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4