McNeal v. Evert, et al

Filing 272

ORDER denying 249 Motion in Limine signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/13/16. (Kaminski, H)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

VERNON WAYNE McNEAL,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

No. 2:05-cv-00441-GEB-EFB

v.

ORDER DENYING EACH DEFENDANT’S
MOTION IN LIMINE

F. LECKIE; A. ERVIN; ROY
CHATHAM, substituted party
for C. CHATHAM, deceased; and
D. VAN LEER;
Defendants.*

10
11
On

12

in

February
which

they

1,

2016,

seek

a

Defendants
pretrial

filed

order

“Motions

precluding

in

13

Limine”

the

14

admission of certain evidence at trial. (Defs.’ MILs, ECF No.

15

249.)
Defendants have not shown that motions nos. 1-3 involve

16
17

controversies

that

have

sufficient

18

issuance of in limine rulings.

19

concreteness

to

justify

denied.

Therefore, these requests are

20

Defendants seek in motions nos. 4, 5, and 7 to preclude

21

Plaintiff from introducing evidence concerning claims that were

22

adjudicated in Defendants’ favor in the Order, (ECF No. 158),

23

which adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations

24

on certain Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (Jan. 18, 2013

25

F.&R.,

ECF

No.

145).

Decision

on

each

of

these

motions

is

26
*

27
28

The caption has been amended to reflect the correct spelling of
Defendant Leckie’s last name and according to Order substituting Roy Chatham
in place of deceased Defendant C. Chatham. (See Order, Jan. 12, 2016, ECF No.
242.)

1

1

unnecessary since it has not been shown that the issues involved

2

in the motions are preserved for trial in the February 24, 2015

3

Final Pretrial Order, (ECF No. 180), the May 22, 2015 Supplement

4

to the Pretrial Order, (ECF No. 206), or the June 1, 2015 Second

5

Supplement to the Pretrial Order, (ECF No. 210).

6

Defendants seek in motion no. 6 to preclude Plaintiff

7

from

“introducing

8

Chatham or Ervin used excessive force on Plaintiff when applying

9

leg restraints, or by coming down on Plaintiff’s back with their
(Defs.’

any

evidence

associated with Defendants’ Chatham and Ervin’s use of excessive

12

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment associated with the

13

application of leg restraints on Plaintiff or coming down on

14

Plaintiff with their knees in his back, have been dismissed.” Id.

15

at

16

Magistrate Judge’s January 18, 2013 Findings and Recommendations,

17

denying these Defendants’ summary judgment motion were adopted by

18

the undersigned judge on July 8, 2013. (See Jan. 18, 2013 F.&R.

19

15:21-16:2; Order Adopting F.&R. 2:10-13, ECF No. 158.)
For

21

Dated:

stated

Defendants

reasons,

DENIED.

22

the

added).)

September 13, 2016

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

each

argue:

Defendants

11

20

Defendants

that

knees.”

(emphasis

6:7-13.)

or

10

6:10-13

MILs

testimony

are

in

“Any

claims

incorrect.

limine

motion

The

is