McCurdy v. Kernan et al

Filing 120

ORDER GRANTING 102 Defendant's Motion in Limine Number Five signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/10/2021. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES C. McCURDY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
S. KERNAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01356-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
IN LIMINE NUMBER FIVE
(ECF No. 102)

Plaintiff James C. McCurdy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is currently set for jury trial before the undersigned on

19

January 25, 2022. On December 15, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for the attendance of

20

incarcerated witness Christopher Price. (ECF No. 80.)

21

On November 15, 2021, Defendant filed a motion in limine to limit the testimony of inmate-

22

witness Christopher Price. (ECF No. 102.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 3, 2021. (ECF

23

No. 113.)

24

Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it

25

would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Fed.

26

R. Evid. 401. The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially

27

outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue

28

delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
1

Defendant seeks to limit testimony by witness Price to only what he heard on April 19, 2016-

1
2

date of the incident at issue. (ECF No. 102.) Plaintiff opposes the limitation of his witness’s

3

testimony and argues he “may have knowledge of events leading up to the extraction that day.” (ECF

4

No. 113 at 5.)
Defendant’s motion shall be granted as any testimony by witness Price as to his prior

5
6

experience with being extracted from cells in other institutions, and testimony relating to other alleged

7

uses of force with other inmates on dates not at issue, is not relevant to the issue in this case. In

8

addition, such testimony is highly prejudicial and will confuse the issues to be determined. Lastly, an

9

attempt to “unring the bell” after such testimony would be futile. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion in

10

limime number five is GRANTED, and witness Price’s testimony limited to the incident which took

11

place on April 19, 2016.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

December 10, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2