Tafilele v. Harrington et al

Filing 110

ORDER Regarding Defendants' 92 93 94 Motions in Limine signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/26/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

ASOFA V. TAFILELE,

12

Plaintiff,
vs.

13
14

HERNANDEZ, et al.,

15

16
17
18
19

Defendants.
I.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10cv01493 LJO DLB PC
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(Documents 92, 93 and 94)

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Asofa V. Tafilele (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is
proceeding against (1) Defendants R. Mata, R. Hernandez, D. Williams, J. Spurgeon and M.

20

Murphy for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on the use of excessive force; and (2)
21

Defendant S. Meza for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on deliberate indifference to a
22
23
24
25
26

serious medical need.
This matter is set for jury trial on March 4, 2014.
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motions in Limine, filed on January 28, 2014.
Plaintiff did not oppose the motions.

27
28

1

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

A.

3

Defendants seek to exclude any and all testimony, questions or arguments regarding the

4
5

Motion to Exclude “Code of Silence” and “Green Wall” Arguments

“Code of Silence” and “Green Wall” at trial as irrelevant, overly prejudicial and an undue
consumption of time. Defendants concede that there is no indication that the terms are

6

applicable to this action, but they point out that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Mata failed to
7

report the use of excessive force, and Defendant Meza failed to report his broken arm.
8

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. While the Plaintiff may present evidence that there
9
10
11

was a failure to report or cover up, general references to the “Code of Silence” and “Green Wall”
are precluded. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

12

B.

Motion Requiring that Plaintiff be Shackled at Trial

13

Defendants seek an order requiring Plaintiff to be shackled throughout the duration of the

14

trial. Defendants cite Plaintiff’s criminal history, as well as his history of disciplinary actions

15

while incarcerated. Defendants state that having Plaintiff restrained by leg irons attached to the

16

cement bucket is an acceptable alternative.

17
18

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff will be subject to the leg irons under the
curtained table for safety concerns within the courtroom, based on his history.

19

C.

20

Defendants argue that Plaintiff should be excluded from presenting evidence on his

21
22

Motion to Exclude Dismissed and Irrelevant Issues at Trial

failure to protect claim, which was dismissed form this action at the screening stage.
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as such evidence is irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

February 26, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2