Gipbsin v. Deforest, Goni, Prater, Shelton and Stone

Filing 210

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/27/12 ORDERING that Plaintiffs 206 objection is overruled. Plaintiff may object to defendants use of evidence regarding his no-contest plea through a properly filed in limine motion. The Pretrial Order, which is now final, indicates that evidentiary issues must be addressed by appropriate in limine motions filed not later than 21 days before trial. (Dckt. No. 204 at 3.)(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-07-0157 MCE EFB P

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff objects the court’s December 20, 2011 pretrial order, on the ground that

18

statements regarding his no-contest plea in a criminal matter should be stricken from the record.

19

Dckt. No. 206. Defendants respond that plaintiff’s objection to defendants introducing or

20

mentioning his no-contest plea should be properly raised in a motion in limine, not omitted from

21

the pretrial order. Dckt. No. 207. As defendants point out, the issue of plaintiff’s no-contest plea

22

must be contained in the pretrial order in order for them to raise it at trial. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ.

23

P. 16(d), (e)). Plaintiff’s objection is therefore overruled. Plaintiff may object to defendants’

24

use of evidence regarding his no-contest plea through a properly filed in limine motion. The

25

////

26

////
1

1

Pretrial Order, which is now final, indicates that evidentiary issues must be addressed by

2

appropriate in limine motions filed not later than twenty-one days before trial. Dckt. No. 204 at

3

3.

4
5

So ordered.
DATED: February 27, 2012.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2