Clark v. Cartwright et al

Filing 103

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 78 MOTION in Limine filed by R Pelker, G Korondo, K Cartwright. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 11/2/2018. (ely)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANIEL CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN CARTWRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-cv-719-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court are the motions in limine filed by Defendants (Doc. 78). Plaintiff filed
a Response (Doc. 101). The Court has reviewed the motions and responses thereto, and sets forth
its rulings as follows:
1. Defendants seek to prohibit Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony, or otherwise
suggesting, that the State of Illinois may indemnify the Defendants. Plaintiff does not
object to this motion.
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be barred from suggesting that the
State of Illinois will indemnify Defendants.
2. Defendants seek to prohibit Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony of other
lawsuits involving any of the Defendants. Plaintiff does not object to this motion.
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be barred from offering evidence
or testimony of other lawsuits involving any of the Defendants.
3. Defendants seek to prohibit Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony of any
misconduct, reprimand or grievance issued against any of the Defendants. Plaintiff
does not object to this motion to the extent it seeks to exclude evidence unrelated to
Clark or the specific events in this case. Plaintiff does object to the exclusion of any
disciplinary action directly involving Clark and the chain of events that culminated in
the September 11, 2013 incident. Defendants assert there was no disciplinary action
against Defendants relating to this incident.
Page 1 of 3

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be barred from offering evidence
of misconduct, reprimand or grievance involving any of the Defendants.
4. Defendants seek to prohibit Plaintiff from making any “golden rule” appeal. Plaintiff
asserts this motion is unnecessary and inappropriate because the law is clear and
Plaintiff’s counsel does not intend to exceed the boundaries of permissible argument.
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be barred from setting forth any
argument or testimony that the jury place itself in Plaintiff’s position or engage in a
hypothetical wherein the jurors are asked to place themselves in Plaintiff’s position.
5. Defendants seek to prohibit Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony referencing
the Illinois Administrative Code, Institutional Directives, and Administrative
Directives. Plaintiff objects that this motion is overbroad and seeks to introduce
administrative directives on “Resort to Force” and “Suicide Prevention and
Intervention and Emergency Services.” Plaintiff argues the directives provide
information regarding the training received by Defendants and the structural backdrop
to their actions and conduct surrounding the September 11, 2013 incident. Defendants
argue violation of a policy directive does not make it more or less likely that their
conduct violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and introducing directives would only
confuse the jury.
The Court agrees that the probative value of the institutional directives is outweighed
by the likelihood of confusion of the issues. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall be barred from introducing evidence or testimony referencing the Illinois
Institutional and Administrative Directives.
6. Defendants seek to prohibit Plaintiff and his witnesses from testifying at trial regarding
the causation of any medical or mental health condition. Defendants argue Plaintiff is
not a physician or psychiatrist and any lay account proffered by him regarding the
causation of any medical conditions should be barred. Plaintiff objects that this
motion is overbroad. Plaintiff argues he should be allowed to testify how he felt.
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff
and his witnesses may testify as to their own personal experiences and observations,
but they shall be prohibited from testifying as to the causation of any specific medical
diagnosis. See Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 659 (7th Cir. 2004) (“no expert testimony is
needed when the symptoms exhibited by the plaintiff are not beyond a layperson's
grasp”).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motions in Limine (Doc. 78) are GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 2, 2018
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3