Guzman v. Scott et al

Filing 54

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 defendants' Amended Motion in Limine; granting 43 plaintiff's Motion in Limine; denying as moot 34 defendants' Motion in Limine. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/22/2017. (AMB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
VICTOR
GUZMAN,
resident,

Florida

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-192-FtM-29CM

MIKE
SCOTT,
Lee
County
Sheriff, in his individual
and
official
capacity,
GUSTAVO
VALLEJO,
in
his
individual capacity, Florida
resident, MIKE TAMULIONIS,
in his individual capacity,
and RICHARD RUSSO, in his
individual capacity,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendants' Amended
Motion in Limine (Doc. #44) filed on January 31, 2017.

Defendants

Mike Scott, as Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, Mike Tamulionis,
and Gustavo Valleho, move in limine to preclude plaintiff from
introducing certain evidence. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed a Response

to Motion in Limine and Memorandum of Law (Doc. #43) on January
31, 2014, which also included a request to exclude plaintiff’s
immigration status. 1

1

The Court will address each in turn.

The Court will treat plaintiff’s request to exclude his
immigration status within his Response as a Motion in Limine.
Further, while plaintiff has not filed a response to defendants’
Amended Motion in Limine, plaintiff did file a Response to

1. Any testimony or evidence regarding whether the charges
were filed against plaintiff or were dropped
Defendants

move

to

exclude

any

testimony

or

evidence

regarding whether charges were filed against plaintiff or were
dropped as such testimony is irrelevant to the issue of whether
defendants had probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest and the right
to use reasonable force to do so.

(Doc. #44, p. 3.)

The Court agrees that whether or not charges were brought or
dropped against plaintiff is of no consequence to determining
whether defendants had probable cause to arrest or use excessive
force in effectuating the arrest in this case.

Under the unique

facts of this case, however, both sides agree that plaintiff was
released at the scene because the victim ultimately said plaintiff
was not the correct person.

The defendants’ Amended Motion in

Limine is denied as to whether charges were filed, although the
absence of charges is consistent with defendants’ position.
2. Any testimony or evidence related to the prior disciplinary
matters against Mike Tamulionis or Gustavo Vallejo
Defendants

assert

that

any

evidence

related

to

prior

disciplinary matters against Mike Tamulionis or Gustavo Vallejo
should be excluded because it is prior bad act evidence and any

defendants’ initial Motion in Limine immediately before defendants
filed their Amended Motion.
It appears that the arguments
presented in the Response also apply to the Amended Motion in
Limine.

- 2 -

probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice.

(Doc. #44, pp. 3-4.)

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of
a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's
character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person
acted in accordance with the character.”

This evidence, however,

may be admissible for other purposes such as “proving motive,
opportunity,

intent,

preparation,

plan,

absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”

knowledge,

identity,

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).

Prior to the admissibility of prior bad act evidence, the burden
is on the party seeking to introduce the evidence to show that:
“(1) the extrinsic offense must be relevant to an issue other than
the

defendant's

character;

(2)

there

must

be

proof

that

the

defendant committed the offense; and (3) the evidence must possess
probative value that is not substantially outweighed by its undue
prejudice and must meet the other requirements of Rule 403.”
United States v. Floyd, 522 F. App’x 463, 465 (11th Cir. 2013)
(citing United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296, 1310-11 (11th
Cir. 2005)).
On February 21, 2017, at the Final Pretrial Conference, 2
counsel for defendants represented that he sought to exclude
evidence of an incident involving Officer Vallejo where his firearm

2

Counsel for plaintiff was not in attendance at the Final
Pretrial Conference.

- 3 -

went off in the cleaning room and he was subsequently disciplined.
This is the only disciplinary action identified.

The Court finds

that this incident is irrelevant to the charges at issue and will
grant

defendants’

Amended

Motion

in

Limine

to

exclude

this

evidence.
3. Any evidence, testimony, or argument about an alleged
pattern, practice, or epidemic of police misconduct,
improper arrest, or use of excessive force by law
enforcement officers in the United States, generally, or
in the Lee County Sheriff’s Office
Defendants assert that any evidence of police misconduct,
improper arrest, or use of excessive force by law enforcement
officers should be excluded because it is irrelevant and any
probative value is substantially outweighed by its propensity for
unfair prejudice to the defendants. (Doc. #44, pp. 4-5.)
Plaintiff withdrew his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim of supervisory
liability against Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott.
7; Doc. #31, p. 12.)

(Doc. #27, p.

The Court grants the motion and plaintiff

may not elicit such evidence without prior permission of the Court.
4. Plaintiff’s Immigration Status
Plaintiff requests that his immigration status be excluded as
irrelevant and because its probative value is far outweighed by
its prejudicial value.

(Doc. #43, p. 4.)

grants plaintiff’s motion.

The Court agrees and

Plaintiff’s immigration status shall

not be raised at trial without the Court’s prior permission.

- 4 -

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendants’ Amended Motion in Limine (Doc. #44) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part, as set forth herein.
2. Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. #34) is denied as moot.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. #43) is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __22nd__ day of
February, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 5 -