Hernandez v. Hernandez et al
Filing
111
ORDER Striking 109 Motion in Limine and 110 Motion for Proposed Voir Dire Questions signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/20/2015. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FEDERICO HERNANDEZ,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,
15
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01625-MJS (PC)
ORDER STRIKING MOTION IN LIMINE
(ECF No. 109) AND MOTION FOR
PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
(ECF No. 110)
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
19
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendants
20
Hernandez, Zambrano, Clark, Rodriguez, and Martin on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
21
excessive force claim. Trial is set for August 11, 2015. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff recently
22
obtained volunteer counsel. (ECF No. 103.)
23
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s July 17, 2015 motion in limine (ECF No. 109) and
24
motion for proposed voir dire questions (ECF No. 110), both filed by Plaintiff acting in
25
pro se.
26
Counsel has been appointed to represent Plaintiff in the preparation for and
27
conduct of trial. Plaintiff’s motions therefore must be brought through counsel. See,
28
1
e.g., United States. v. El–Alamin, 574 F.3d 915, 923 (8th Cir.2009); United States v.
2
Hildreth, 485 F.3d 1120, 1125 (10th Cir.2007); United States v. Vampire Nation, 451
3
F.3d 189, 206 n. 17 (3rd Cir.2006); Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th
4
Cir.2001); Ennis v. LeFevre, 560 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir.1977). The Court will not entertain
5
motions brought by Plaintiff on his own behalf.
6
7
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unauthorized motion in limine (ECF No. 109) and motion
for proposed voir dire questions (ECF No. 110) are HEREBY STRICKEN.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 20, 2015
/s/
11
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?