Thomas v. Garcia et al

Filing 205

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/17/2013 disregarding 203 Trial Exhibits and Exhibit List filed by Jean-Pierre K. Thomas. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEAN-PIERRE K. THOMAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
M.P. GARCIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-0689 – JLT (PC)
ORDE R DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL
EXHIBITS AND EXHIBIT LIST
(Doc. 203)

17

Plaintiff Jean-Pierre K. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 16, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a copy of his trial

19

exhibits in an effort to comply with the Court’s pretrial order. (Doc. 203). Also in compliance with

20

the pretrial order, Plaintiff has properly labeled his exhibits and paginated the document accordingly.

21

Id.

22

Nonetheless, a comparison of Plaintiff’s newly presented trial exhibits and exhibit list (Doc.

23

203) and the exhibits listed in his pretrial statement (Doc. 151) and provided at that time, reveals that

24

the exhibits contained in these documents are not identical.1 While the Court appreciates Plaintiff’s

25
26
1

27
28

By way of illustration, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 – or Exhibit C – as presented in his pretrial statement contains: (1) an
inmate request for an interview, (2) Plaintiff’s initial classification record, (3) four pages of Defendant Bonilla’s response
to request for production of documents, and (4) two crime incident reports from the October 5, 2006, incident. (Doc. 151 at
37-47). On the other hand, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 as presented in his trial exhibits and exhibit list, contains: (1) five pages of

1

1

efforts to comply with the pretrial order, the use of Plaintiff’s newly presented trial exhibits (Doc. 203)

2

would lead to confusion.2

3

Accordingly, the Court DISREGARDS Plaintiff’s newly presented trial exhibits and trial list.

4

(Doc. 203). Defendants have agreed to provide the Court and Plaintiff with copies of Plaintiff’s

5

exhibits contained in his pretrial statement (Doc. 151). Therefore, the exhibits contained in Plaintiff’s

6

pretrial statement SHALL be Plaintiff’s operative list at the trial on this matter.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 17, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Defendant Bonilla’s response to request for production of documents, (2) inmate request for review, (3) Plaintiff’s
classification, (4) Plaintiff’s CDCR Form 602, dated October 15, 2006, and (5) two crime incident reports related to the
October 5, 2006 incident. (Doc. 203 at 13-25).
2
This confusion is compounded by the fact the Court has issued an extensive order related to Defendants’ motion
in limine #1 which discusses Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 through 18. To renumber and reorder them now, for no apparent reason,
would make managing the exhibits unwieldy.

2