Porter v. Wegman et al

Filing 178

ORDER Denying 163 Motion to Amend Plaintiff's Pretrial Statement, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/27/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

BRIAN ELLIS PORTER,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:10-cv-01500-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
PLAINTIFF’S PRETRIAL STATEMENT

v.
(ECF No. 163)
CHERYLEE WEGMAN,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Plaintiff Brian Ellis Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

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

17

claims against Defendant Wegman for violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First

18

Amendment.

19

On July 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his pretrial statement. (ECF No. 163.)

20

By his motion, Plaintiff seeks to amend his pretrial statement to include additional exhibits.

21

These exhibits encompass four categories: (1) package catalogs (Access Securepak, Union

22

Supply Direct and Walkenhorst); (2) online websites of package companies (californiaqp.com,

23

californiainmatepackage.com, and www.walkenhorsts.com); (3) declarations of Defendant

24

Wegman and J. Castro in support of various motions; and (4) the United States Commission on

25

Civil Rights report “Enforcing Religious Freedom in Prison” and related website at

26

www.usccr.gov. (Id.)

27
28

On July 27, 2017, the Court held a telephonic status conference to discuss trial readiness
and related issues, including Plaintiff’s pending motion to amend his pretrial statement. As
1

1

indicated on the record, Plaintiff has withdrawn his request to amend his pretrial statement with

2

respect to the package catalogs and the related online websites. Based on Plaintiff’s withdrawal,

3

Plaintiff’s request to amend his pretrial statement to add these exhibits is now moot.

4

With regard to the declarations, the Court previously informed Plaintiff that the

5

declarations filed in support of various motions need not be listed as exhibits in the pretrial order.

6

Thus, any request to amend the pretrial statement to add these exhibits also is moot.

7

Finally, with respect to the United States Commission on Civil Rights report (and

8

website), the Court finds the proposed exhibit to be irrelevant to the Free Exercise claim at issue

9

and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation religious policies in effect

10

during the relevant time period. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Even if the report were deemed relevant,

11

however, its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues and

12

misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Plaintiff will therefore be precluded from introducing

13

this exhibit (and related website) at trial.

14
15

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his
pretrial statement, filed on July 10, 2017, is DENIED.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 27, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2