Turley v. Bedinger et al

Filing 292

ORDER granting 280 Motion in Limine; granting in part 282 Motion in Limine, although Nos.3 and 7 remain under advisement; denying 284 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting in part and denying in part 287 Motion for Tour by Jury and Release of Blue Print for Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 5/20/2016. (jcp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GREGORY J. TURLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALAN UCHTMAN, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 08–cv–007–SCW

ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
On May 19, 2016, a motion hearing was held in the above-captioned case. Appearing at the
hearing: Plaintiff appeared pro-se. Robert Fanning for Defendants. This order summarizes the
hearing, as well as the Court’s ruling on the motions in limine and other issues. More detailed
reasons for the rulings can be found on the hearing transcript.
The Court ruled on the following motions in limine:
Plaintiff’s Motion Issue #1 (Doc. 280) — Granted
While the fact of a felony may be probative of credibility, the Court is required to
weigh the requirements of FRE 609(a)(1) subject to FRE 403. The name of
Plaintiff’s offense and the length of his sentence are extremely prejudicial and the
probative value of the name of his conviction is outweighed by the prejudice that
would result. The Court will permit the Defendants to elicit the number of felonies
that Plaintiff for which Plaintiff has been convicted
Defendant’s Motion Issue #1 (Doc. 282) – Granted
This is an issue that should be kept from the jury. Courts have determined that the
probative value of a party’s insurance or right of indemnification is outweighed by

the prejudicial value. Jurys may view such evidence as a prod to award more money
in damages. It would be reversible error to allow this evidence.
Defendant’s Motion Issue #2 (Doc. 282) – Granted
Plaintiff has no objection.
Defendant’s Motion Issue #3 (Doc. 282) – Under Advisement
Plaintiff’s grievances are only admissible for some purposes. The grievance cannot
be used to bolster the contentions of Plaintiff’s case. For example, Plaintiff cannot
introduce his own grievance to prove that Plaintiff’s cell is too small. However,
Plaintiff has not yet produced a proposed exhibit list, so the Court will hold off on
ruling on this issue until Plaintiff has considered for what purposes he may introduce
grievances.
Defendant’s Motion Issue #4 (Doc. 282) – Granted
Plaintiff cannot provide his own testimony for causation issues when the issues are
within the realm of an expert. Plaintiff can testify regarding his stress levels, joint
stiffness, headaches, stiffness, heat issue, and anxiety. Plaintiff cannot testify that he
got irritable bowel syndrome from being confined in a small cell.
Defendant’s Motion Issue #5 (Doc. 282) – Granted
Plaintiff cannot provide hearsay testimony about what medical providers told him.
Defendant’s Motion Issue #6 (Doc. 282) – Granted
Plaintiff has already had his day in Court regarding Danny Bedinger. It is no longer
related to the present issues, and Plaintiff may not raise those issue again at trial.
Defendant’s Motion Issue #7 (Doc. 282) – Under Advisement
The Court will need to review Plaintiff’s exhibit list prior to ruling on this issue
because there are issues for which the regulations and administrative directives may
be admissible.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Stand-by Counsel (Doc. 284)
The Court asked Plaintiff a while ago if he wanted an attorney, and Plaintiff indicated he
wanted to try the case himself. It is now too close to trial to appoint an attorney and the Court
declines to do so. Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Tour by Jury and Release of Blue Print for Trial (Doc. 287)

Plaintiff’s motion for a jury tour is denied. It will be cumbersome and the Court does not
believe that it has the authority to order a prison a tour. The Court does, however, believe that it
would be probative for the jury to see pictures of the cell at issue here. The Defendants are directed
to provide Plaintiff with color pictures of a representative cell in the North cell house. An adult
male shall be pictured in the cell as a reference point. The pictures are only to be used for purposes
of this case, and Plaintiff shall return the pictures at the termination of his appeal. Defendants are
also directed to research the issue of whether there was a white line on the cell that Plaintiff was
forbidden to cross. Plaintiff may use the exhibits he submitted with his Complaint if he redacts the
language that he added to those documents. Defendants will verify the cell dimensions. Plaintiff’s
Motion is therefore DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
Matter is reset for June 3 at 2 pm. Plaintiff shall submit his exhibit list to Defendants no
later than May 25, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 20, 2016

/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge