Samuels v. Adame et al

Filing 96

ORDER Regarding Defendants' Motion in Limine 85 and Objections to Pretrial Order 86 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 3/4/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
ROBERT EARL SAMUELS,

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01320-SAB PC

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION IN LIMINE AND OBJECTIONS
TO PRETRIAL ORDER

10
v.
11
G. ADAME, et al.,

ECF Nos. 85, 86

12
Defendants.
13
/
14
15

Plaintiff Robert Earl Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and

16

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding

17

on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed December 31, 2009, against Defendants G. Adame, P.

18

Gentry, B. Medrano, R. Nicholas, F. Rivera, E. Sailer, and D. Snyder for excessive force, and against

19

Defendant C. Farnsworth for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the

20

Eighth Amendment. This matter is set for jury trial on March 12, 2013 before the undersigned.

21

On March 4, 2013, a telephonic pretrial hearing was held. Plaintiff appeared representing

22

himself in the matter. Defense counsel Diana Esquivel appeared on behalf of Defendants. The Court

23

makes the following ruling with regard to Defendants’ motion for limine filed February 11, 2013:

24

I.

25

Defendants object to Plaintiff offering any evidence concerning his current medical and

26

mental-health conditions, or offering opinions or making inferences whether his current conditions

27

were caused or are related to this incident.

28

Offering Opinions About Medical Conditions

Ruling: The Court tentatively grants Defendants’ motion in limine. Medical opinions
1

1

require specialized knowledge of an expert. Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702. The Plaintiff may testify as to

2

his medical conditions but shall not offer evidence, whether through exhibits or testimony, of others’

3

opinions, diagnoses and prognoses related to Plaintiff’s medical conditions.

4

II.

5

Defendants object to Plaintiff introducing testimony or other evidence unrelated to the claims

6

References to Claims and Defendants That Were Dismissed

at issue in this action, or any claims that were previously dismissed.

7

Ruling: The Court tentatively grants Defendants’ motion in limine. Evidence of unrelated

8

or dismissed claims and Defendants are irrelevant to this proceeding. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403.

9
10
11

III.

Evidence that Defendants Are Parties In Other Lawsuits

Defendants object to the introduction of evidence or other testimony concerning allegations
made against Defendants, including other complaints of excessive force.

12

Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence regarding prior or pending lawsuits, namely against

13

Defendants G. Adame and B. Medrano. The proposed evidence against G. Adame concerned his

14

alleged fabrication of a report in another lawsuit. The proposed evidence against B. Medrano

15

concerned Medrano’s alleged use excessive of force in another lawsuit.

16

Ruling: The Court tentatively grants Defendants’ motion in limine with respect to Defendant

17

G. Adame. Such evidence is impermissible under Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The

18

Court reserves ruling on this issue with respect to Defendant Medrano. However, with respect to

19

Defendant Medrano, Plaintiff shall not seek to introduce such evidence without first obtaining a

20

ruling from the Court outside the presence of the jury.

21

IV.

22

Defendants object to the introduction of any evidence regarding an offer of compromise.

23

Evidence of Offer to Compromise

Plaintiff does not oppose.

24

Ruling: The Court grants Defendants’ motion in limine. Fed. R. Evid. 408.

25

V.

26

Defendants object to the introduction of any evidence that Defendants may be indemnified

27
28

Evidence That State May Pay Judgment

by the State if judgment should be entered against them.
Ruling: The Court grants Defendants’ motion in limine.
2

1

VI.

2

Defendants object to the introduction of any evidence concerning a “code of silence” or

3

Evidence Concerning “Code of Silence”

“official cover up” in this action.

4

Ruling: The Court grants Defendants’ motion in limine.

5

VII.

6

Defendants intend to introduce the length of Plaintiff’s felony conviction. Defendants do not

7

intend to introduce the specific nature of Plaintiff’s conviction only a felony conviction and the

8

length of sentence imposed.

9

Evidence of Felony Conviction

Ruling: The Court grants Defendants’ motion in limine should the Plaintiff testify.

10

VIII. Objections to Pretrial Order

11

Defendants filed objections to the Court’s Pretrial Order on February 11, 2013. Defendants

12

request that Defendants Farnsworth and Snyder be excused from appearing until Tuesday afternoon

13

or the next day of trial, and that Lieutenant Matzen be permitted to be called to testify at a later time

14

and required to be present on the first day of trial.

15

Ruling: With regard to Defendants Farnsworth and Snyder, Defendants withdraw their

16

request. However, for the reasons stated on the record, during the course of the trial, the Defendants

17

may stand up and/or exit the courtroom when necessary. With regard to Lieutenant Matzen,

18

Defendants are not required to have his presence on the first day of trial. However, the Court has

19

advised the parties that no undue delay in trial proceedings will be permitted, and absent good cause,

20

the testimony of a witness may be waived if the witness is not present to testify when called.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
i1eed4

March 4, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3