Puckett v. Brandon

Filing 114

ORDER regarding 86 Objections to Court's Pretrial Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/6/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

K. BRANDON,

15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00290-SAB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO COURT’S PRETRIAL
ORDER
[ECF No. 86]

Plaintiff Durrell A. Puckett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both parties have consented to United States magistrate judge

19

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 46.)

20

On August 30, 2016, the Court issued the final pretrial order in this case. (ECF No. 85.) On

21

September 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the pretrial order. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff objects to

22

the use of prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes, admission of any rules violation report,

23

and Plaintiff seeks to depose Defendant’s witnesses D. Rose and S. Latham. Plaintiff also submits that

24

he does not have access to the jury instructions.

25

With regard to prior convictions of Plaintiff and his incarcerated witnesses, Plaintiff is advised

26

that the Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 provide that evidence of a witness’s prior felony

27

conviction or instance of conduct demonstrating a propensity to lie may be used to impeach that

28

witness’s testimony. If a conviction is more than ten years old, defendant is required to comply with
1

1

Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) if he seeks to impeach plaintiff with his conviction. Simpson v.

2

Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 690–91 (9th Cir. 2008). With regard to the admission of any rules violation

3

report, although Defendant listed rules violation report, log number 3A03-13-06-004, as an exhibit to

4

be presented at trial, the Court has not and cannot make a ruling on the admission of any rules

5

violation report until the time of trial, and Plaintiff is free to raise any appropriate objection if

6

Defendant seeks to admit such evidence. Thus, the Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff’s objection until

7

the presentation of such evidence at trial. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to depose defense witnesses D.

8

Rose and S. Latham, Plaintiff is advised that the discovery deadline expired on May 5, 2015, which

9

included taking any necessary depositions. (ECF No. 13, Order at 2.) Furthermore, the Court denied

10

Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline on March 31, 2016, and denied Plaintiff’s motion

11

for reconsideration of the order. (ECF Nos. 43, 48, 59, 62.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to depose

12

defense witnesses on the eve of trial is denied. Lastly, with regard to Plaintiff’s claim that he does not

13

have access to jury instructions, Plaintiff is advised that the court will prepare the necessary jury

14

instructions and verdict form which the parties will have the opportunity to review on the morning of

15

trial.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections do not present

16
17

any basis to amend the Court’s August 30, 2016, pretrial order.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

21

October 6, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2