Johnson v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 177

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Motions in Limine 144 & 170 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/22/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01264-BAM (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
IN LIMINE
(ECF Nos. 144, 170)

17

I.

18

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

Introduction

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

20

claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

21

against Defendant Gonzales (erroneously sued as L. Gonzalez) and Defendant Murrieta arising out of

22

an alleged assault following the takedown of Plaintiff by Defendant Gonzales on June 9, 2008. A jury

23

trial is set for April 28, 2015.

24

Pursuant to the pretrial order, on March 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed his motions in limine in

25

advance of trial. Defendants did not file an opposition. On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed additional

26

motions in limine. Defendants again did not file an opposition. Plaintiff’s motions for limine came on

27

for hearing on April 21, 2015, before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe, United States Magistrate

28
1

1
2
3
4
5

Judge. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Timothy Delgado and Maureen
Onyeagbako of the Attorney General’s Office of California appeared telephonically on behalf of
Defendants Gonzales and Murrieta. Having considered the moving papers, as well as the arguments
of the parties, the Court issues the following order.
II.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
A. Allegations at Issue

On June 9, 2008, Defendants Gonzales and Murrieta were escorting Plaintiff back to his cell
from the law library. Defendants were trying to engage Plaintiff in conversation, making threats and
using profanity. Defendant Gonzales began pulling on Plaintiff’s left arm, telling him to speed up and
walk faster. Plaintiff’s hands were handcuffed behind his back and he was holding his legal mail.
Plaintiff responded that he could not go any faster and that he was losing his grip on the envelope he
was holding because Defendant Gonzales was pulling on his arm. Defendant Gonzales slammed
Plaintiff to the ground with enough force that “Plaintiffs head was busted.” (ECF No. 1, ¶ 17.) Plaintiff
was struck by Defendants Gonzales and Murrieta numerous times before losing consciousness. When
Plaintiff regained consciousness, Correctional Officers Beltran and Blevins escorted him to the
medical clinic for treatment.
Plaintiff’s claim is limited to the time period after the initial takedown by Defendant Gonzales
and his allegations that Defendants Gonzales and Murrieta struck him numerous times before he lost
consciousness.
B. Motion in Limine: Standard
A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it is
actually introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). “[A] motion in
limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded
management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d
436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary disputes before
trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the jury. Brodit v.
Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003).

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Motions in limine that exclude broad categories of evidence are disfavored, and such issues are
better dealt with during trial as the admissibility of evidence arises. Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber, Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). Additionally, some evidentiary issues are not
accurately and efficiently evaluated by the trial judge in a motion in limine and it is necessary to defer
ruling until trial when the judge can better estimate the impact of the evidence on the jury. Jonasson,
115 F.3d at 440.
C. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #1

8

Plaintiff raises an objection regarding Defendants’ assertion that evidence concerning

9

Plaintiff’s dismissed claims is not admissible for any purpose. Plaintiff’s objection is construed as a

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

motion in limine to allow evidence and testimony concerning the entire incident of June 9, 2008,
including the initial takedown by Defendant Gonzales.
As discussed at the hearing, the Court will not limit Plaintiff’s testimony to events occurring
only after the initial takedown. Rather, Plaintiff shall be permitted to provide factual evidence and
testimony regarding the entire incident on June 9, 2008, including events before and after the initial
takedown, in order to provide context to the jury. As Defendants raised no objection at the hearing,
Plaintiff’s motion in limine to allow evidence and testimony concerning the entire incident on June 9,
2008, including the initial takedown, is GRANTED.
D. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #2
Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ assertion that evidence concerning Plaintiff’s allegations
against defendants that have been dismissed is not admissible for any purpose. Plaintiff’s objection is
construed as a motion in limine to allow evidence and testimony concerning the entire incident of June
9, 2008, including any persons involved in the incident before and after the initial takedown by
Defendant Gonzales.
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff shall be permitted to provide context for the alleged
assault on June 9, 2008. As Defendants raised no objection at the hearing, Plaintiff’s motion in limine
to allow evidence and testimony concerning the entire incident of June 9, 2008, including testimony

27
28
3

1
2

related to any persons involved in the incident before and after the initial takedown by Defendant
Gonzales is HEREBY GRANTED.

3

E. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #3

4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ assertion that if Defendant Gonzales is medically unavailable
for trial, then the relevant incident reports and business records Defendant Gonzales authored should
be admitted into evidence. (ECF no. 144, p. 2.) Plaintiff’s objection is construed as a motion in
limine to preclude the introduction of incident and business records authored by Defendant Gonzales
based on his unavailability for trial.

9
10
11
12

At the hearing, defense counsel represented that Defendant Gonzales will be present and
available at trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude the introduction of the relevant
incident reports and business records authored by Defendant Gonzales based on his unavailability for
trial is HEREBY DENIED as moot.

13

F. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #4

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiff’s allegations of a knee injury sustained
as a result of the initial takedown are irrelevant. Plaintiff has not attributed his knee injury to the
initial takedown. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is construed as a motion in limine to allow testimony
regarding the injuries he sustained during the events at issue.

18
19
20

As stated at the hearing, Plaintiff will not be precluded from providing testimony regarding
what happened and the injuries he sustained. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in limine to allow
testimony regarding the injuries he sustained is HEREBY GRANTED.

21

G. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #5

22

Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff’s objection is moot. As

23

stated in Defendants’ pretrial statement and the Pretrial Order, Defendants do not intend to request

24

attorneys’ fees if they prevail at trial. (ECF No. 20, p. 9; ECF No. 139, p. 12.) Accordingly,

25

Plaintiff’s objection is HEREBY DENIED as moot.

26
27

///
///

28
4

1
2
3
4

H. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #6
Plaintiff requests that he be allowed to walk freely around the courtroom if defense counsel is
allowed to do so. As explained at the hearing, Plaintiff cannot be permitted to walk freely around the
courtroom based on security issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is HEREBY DENIED.

5
6

I. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #7
Plaintiff requests that a United States Marshal be allowed to re-enact events that occurred with

7

handcuffs on “behind Plaintiff’s back to show Plaintiff could not turn fully around … and bump

8

Defendant Gonzales in his chest.” (ECF No. 144, p. 3.)

9

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s demonstration relates to the initial takedown by Defendant

10

Gonzales, which is not at issue. It is therefore irrelevant to Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants

11
12
13
14
15

assaulted him after the takedown. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Second, even if relevant, the probative value of
such demonstration is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendants. Rule 403 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence provides that relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing
the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative

16

evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. In this instance, the proposed demonstration would be inaccurate and

17

prejudicial. Plaintiff’s demonstration is dependent upon the positioning and size of the involved

18
19
20
21
22

parties, which cannot be recreated in the courtroom with a United States Marshal. Although the
demonstration will not be permitted, Plaintiff may describe what happened and question witnesses
regarding what happened and how it happened.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in limine for a re-enactment of events with the assistance of a
United States Marshal is HEREBY DENIED.

23
24
25
26
27

J. Plaintiff’s Additional Motions in Limine
On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed additional motions in limine seeking to preclude introduction
of certain defense exhibits, including an abstract of judgment (DX-1); a 115 RVR Hearing Report
(DX-2); a Crime/Incident Report (DX-3); and certain of Plaintiff’s Health Care Service Request forms
(DX-5).

28
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

DX-1
Defense exhibit DX-1 is an Abstract of Judgment for Plaintiff Johnson, which shows that he
was convicted of attempted murder in November 2005 and sentenced to life in prison with the
possibility of parole. Plaintiff argues that this exhibit serves no purpose.
Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 provide that evidence of a witness’ prior felony
conviction may be used to impeach that witness’ testimony.
Defendants represented that they would not attempt to enter the abstract of judgment into
evidence unless Plaintiff denies that he is a convicted felon. As discussed at the hearing, Defendants
will not be allowed to introduce evidence of the substance of the Plaintiff’s conviction at trial.

10

However, evidence of Plaintiff’s prior felony conviction may be used as impeachment evidence. Fed.

11

R. Evid. 609. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in limine is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

12

PART. Defendants may not introduce the substance and charges underlying Plaintiff’s conviction.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

However, Defendants may introduce evidence that Plaintiff is a convicted felon.
DX-2, DX-3 and DX-5
Defense exhibit DX-2 is a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) against Plaintiff for battery on a
peace officer related to the events of June 9, 2008. Defense exhibit DX-3 is a Crime/Incident Report
regarding the events on June 9, 2008. Defense exhibit DX-5 consists of Plaintiff’s Health Care
Services Request Forms.
As discussed at the hearing, the Court DEFERS ruling on the admissibility of these exhibits
until the time of trial.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 22, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
6