Clark v. Cartwright et al
Filing
86
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 59 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 8/20/2018. (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 Plaintiff (Doc. 59). The Court has
reviewed the motions and responses thereto, and sets for its rulings as follows:
1. Motion in Limine to bar Plaintiff’s Department of Corrections (“DOC”) inmate
disciplinary history.
Defendants have no objection, except as it relates to Plaintiff’s sexual misconduct on
September 11, 2013. The exception will be addressed below. The motion to bar Plaintiff’s DOC
disciplinary history is GRANTED.
2. Motion in Limine to bar testimony regarding misconduct that allegedly occurred
between Plaintiff and Amy Lang on September 11, 2013.
Plaintiff asks that the Court preclude testimony regarding alleged self-gratification in the
presence of Amy Lang, a nurse, on September 11, 2013.
Plaintiff contends exclusion is
warranted under Rule 401 and 403 because it is substantially more prejudicial than probative.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants seek to introduce such evidence to insinuate bad character on his
behalf and to confuse or inflame the passions of the jury through the nature of the alleged
Page 1 of 3
misconduct which is prohibited under Rule 404(b). Defendants contend the incident is relevant to
Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against Korando for failing to protect Plaintiff from the
risk of suicide on September 11, 2013. Plaintiff alleges he requested Defendant Korando to call
the crisis team, but Korando ignored the request. Defendant Korando asserts he should be
permitted to explain the multiple instances in which he had the opportunity to observe Plaintiff on
September 11, 2013, and whether he witnessed any signs of distress or indicators of potential
suicide. Defendant Korando asserts the jury should be allowed to hear evidence that Korando
was instructed to advise Plaintiff that he would be moving cells because of Plaintiff’s misbehavior
in front of Ms. Lang, and prior to this Korando did not witness any signs of suicide. If the Court
finds the evidence of Plaintiff engaging in sexual misconduct is too prejudicial, in the alternative,
Defendants ask to present evidence that Plaintiff was being moved cells for disciplinary reasons,
without mention of the sexual nature of the misconduct.
Defendant Korando’s state of mind is at issue in Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim.
Plaintiff’s actions and behavior on September 11, 2013 are relevant to whether Defendant
Korando knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health. The risk of prejudice
does not outweigh the probative value of the evidence of the events that occurred on September 11,
2013. Plaintiff’s motion in limine is therefore DENIED.
3. Motion in Limine to bar evidence of Plaintiff’s criminal history.
Plaintiff moves to exclude any evidence or testimony regarding the nature of his criminal
offenses.
Defendants object to Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s convictions are
admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 609.
Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(A) provides that evidence of a criminal conviction
(punishable by death or by imprisonment of more than one year) may be admitted for the purpose
Page 2 of 3
of attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness. This provision is subject to Federal Rule of
Evidence 403, which states that “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing
the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.”
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the probative value of his criminal convictions is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion in limine is
therefore GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Defendants may introduce
evidence that Plaintiff has been convicted of felonies and was previously incarcerated with the
Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendants shall not introduce evidence identifying the
specific crimes for which Plaintiff was incarcerated.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 59) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 20, 2018
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?