Valentine v. Torres-Quezada et al

Filing 173

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 AND GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting in part and denying in part 89 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 93 Motion in Limine. (kkp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAVONTAE VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
TORRES-QUEZADA, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 22-cv-01520-JSW
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 1 AND GRANTING, IN PART,
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 2
Re: Dkt. Nos. 89, 93

12
13

At trial, Plaintiff seeks to introduce testimony about gang culture and prison politics for a

14

limited purpose but moves in limine to exclude any evidence gang affiliation as character

15

evidence. Defendants do not intend to use evidence of gang membership as character evidence.

16

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as moot.

17

Defendants move in limine to exclude all testimony on gang culture or prison politics. The

18

Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s use-of-force expert from providing an

19

opinion on those topics on the basis that it would not assist the trier of fact. (See Dkt. No. 85.)

20

The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, the record in this

21

case, as well as the parties’ arguments at the pre-trial conference. For the reasons that follow, the

22

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion, in part.

23

Plaintiff argues that evidence about gang culture and prison politics is relevant to explain

24

why he did not immediately comply with Defendants’ directives to get down. In order to

25

determine if any Defendant used excessive force on Plaintiff, a jury may consider: “(1) the extent

26

of injury suffered by an inmate; (2) the need for application of force; (3) the relationship between

27

that need and the amount of force used; (4) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible

28

officials; and (5) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Furnace v.

1

Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff argues evidence of gang culture and

2

racial politics would be relevant to the second and fourth factors. (See Opp. to Def. MIL No. 2 at

3

2:1-2.)

4
5

and, thus, did not know whether or not Plaintiff was affiliated with a gang. The Court will exclude

6

evidence of “gang culture” on the basis that any probative value it may have would be

7

substantially outweighed by the potential to confuse the jurors and cause undue delay.

8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

It is undisputed that Defendants did not know who Plaintiff was on the date of the incident

The fact that Plaintiff failed to comply with Defendants’ instructions is relevant, but
Plaintiff’s motivation for not complying with those orders is not. Cf. White v. Roper, 901 F.2d

10

1507, 1507 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming grant of summary judgment and noting that notwithstanding

11

plaintiff’s motivations, his refusal to comply with orders “created a need for [the defendants] to

12

apply reasonable force to control him”).

13

Although Defendants did not know who Plaintiff was, they have not argued they were

14

unaware of his race. There is testimony in the record from Defendant Reyes that “[d]uring an

15

altercation,” there are dangers associated with an inmate being near a group of inmates of a

16

different racial background. (Dkt. Nos. 105, 105-1, Declaration of Rodolfo Rivera Aquino, ¶ 2,

17

Ex. 1 (Deposition of Manuel Reyes-Diaz at 119:21-25).) Therefore, the Court concludes that

18

Plaintiff’s explanation for why he moved would be relevant to whether a Defendants’ perception

19

of those actions would be reasonable. Plaintiff may testify about why he did not immediately

20

comply with the Defendants’ orders on that day but may not testify about gang culture or prison

21

politics in general. In addition, the Court will not preclude Plaintiff from examining the

22

Defendants about whether Plaintiff’s actions on that date would have posed more or less of a

23

security risk in light of the circumstances. See, e.g., Taylor v. Keurtson, No. 19-cv-0450 TLN

24

KJN P, 2020 WL 384052, at *10-13 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2020), report and recommendation adopted

25

2020 WL 5017602 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020) (granting motion for summary judgment and

26

concluding defendants did not use excessive force, in part, because plaintiff failed to contradict

27

defendant’s evidence that his “behavior posed a security risk because it could incite other inmates

28

to become disruptive or be a decoy for other disruptive behavior”).
2

1

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, Defendants’

2

motion in limine no. 2. In light of the Court’s ruling excluding evidence of gang membership, the

3

Court will not question jurors about their views on gang membership during voir dire and will not

4

include Plaintiff’s proposed question on that topic in the juror questionnaire. Plaintiff may submit

5

one additional question to be included in the juror survey by no later than 10:00 a.m. on August

6

30, 2024.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2024
______________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3