McCurdy v. Kernan et al

Filing 132

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's 131 Motion in Limine Number Five and Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Number Two as MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/7/2022. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JAMES C. McCURDY, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 v. S. KERNAN, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01356-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER FIVE AND PLAINTIFF MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER TWO AS MOOT (ECF No. 131) 14 Plaintiff James C. McCurdy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 15 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A trial is set for January 25, 2022, in this matter. (ECF No. 121.) 17 On March 26, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ third motion in limine seeking to exclude 18 Plaintiff from offering improper medical testimony, restricting Plaintiff from testifying regarding 19 opinions or inferences from any of his medical records. (ECF No. 97 at 7-8.) Plaintiff’s second 20 motion in limine was granted on March 26, 2021, and evidence of prior disciplinary violations was 21 restricted. (ECF No. 97 at 5-6.) On December 8, 2021, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for 22 reconsideration of the Court’s granting of Plaintiff’s motion in limine number two pertaining to 23 disciplinary records. (ECF No. 116.) The Court granted the Defendant’s motion in limine number 24 five on December 10, 2021, restricting the testimony of inmate-witness Christopher Price. (ECF No. 25 120.) 26 On December 28, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an 27 opposition to Defendants’ motion in limine number five as moot because the motion was already 28 granted. (ECF No. 126.) Additionally, through the same order, because Plaintiff’s motion in limine 1 1 number two has already been granted, and the Court has already adjudicated Defendant’s motion in 2 limine number three pertaining to testimony about Plaintiff’s medical records, Plaintiff’s request for an 3 extension of time to file a motion in limine number two “for the defendant to exclude my privileged 4 medical and Mental Health records as evidence at trial,” was denied as moot, in addition for being 5 vague and unsupported by good cause. 6 Nonetheless, on January 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed what was entitled motion in limine number 7 two, appearing to again request exclusion of his privileged medical and mental health records. 8 Plaintiff also filed an opposition to motion in limine number five despite the Court denying the request 9 for an extension to oppose the already adjudicated motion. Because both of Plaintiff’s motion have 10 been adjudicated on the merits, they shall be denied as moot. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s entitled motion in limine number two is DENIED as moot; and 13 2. Plaintiff’s opposition to motion in limine number five is DENIED as moot. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: 17 January 7, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?