Miller v. Boone et al

Filing 72

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 63 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support filed by Brian Miller. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 1/11/2019. (ely)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRIAN MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O/BOONE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-585-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court on the motions in limine filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 63). The Court has
reviewed the motions and responses thereto, and sets forth its rulings as follows:
1. Motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to Plaintiff’s arrests and convictions.
Plaintiff moves to exclude any evidence or testimony regarding the nature of his criminal
offenses arguing such evidence is not relevant and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
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
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,

Page 1 of 4

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 is incarcerated with the Illinois Department of
Corrections. Defendants shall not introduce evidence identifying the specific crimes for which
Plaintiff was incarcerated.
2. Motion in limine to bar reference to any of Plaintiff’s conduct violations or disciplinary
history while incarcerated.
Plaintiff moves to exclude any evidence or testimony regarding his disciplinary history
while incarcerated arguing such evidence is not relevant, unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403, and
inadmissible under Rule 404. Defendants have no objection, except as related to Plaintiff’s fight
with another inmate that occurred just prior to the alleged use of force on October 20, 2014.
Plaintiff was disciplined for fighting with another inmate. Defendants argue the fight occurred
immediately prior to the alleged use of force and is relevant to Defendants’ defense to Plaintiff’s
claim that he was injured by correctional staff.
The motion to bar Plaintiff’s DOC disciplinary history is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. Defendants may introduce evidence concerning Plaintiff’s October 20,
2014 discipline and the events surrounding that discipline.

Defendants shall not introduce

evidence of disciplinary history unrelated to the events of October 20, 2014.
3. Motion in limine to exclude testimony or argument regarding dismissed or previously
named Defendants.
Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff seeks to bar Defendants from eliciting any testimony that any individual was
previously a named defendant in this matter. Plaintiff argues this evidence is irrelevant and
prejudicial as it might imply to the jury that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants somehow lack
merit because of the dismissal of previously named defendants. Defendants object to this motion.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged Defendant Stallings was one of the correctional officers who
assaulted him. Later, in his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he was able to specifically identify
Defendant Stallings as one of the correctional officers who “assisted [Defendant Bone] in the
assault,” because he “could read the names of the officers.” The parties subsequently stipulated
to dismissal of Defendant Stallings because he was not at Shawnee Correctional Center, where
Plaintiff alleges he was physically beaten.

Defendants assert Plaintiff’s identification of

Defendant Stallings was either mistaken—in which case, Defendants argue they should be allowed
to use this mistake to challenge Plaintiff’s ability to perceive the events and individuals on the day
in question—or Plaintiff’s identification was a fabrication—in which case, Defendants argue they
should be allowed to use Plaintiff’s fabrication to challenge his credibility.
The motion to exclude testimony and argument that Jeffrey Stallings was previously named
as a Defendant is GRANTED. Defendants may introduce evidence that Plaintiff previously
identified Stallings as having been involved in the alleged assault.
4. Motion in limine to exclude testimony or argument regarding Plaintiff’s mental health
history.
Plaintiff seeks to bar any evidence as to Plaintiff’s mental health history. Defendants have
no objection and do not intend to refer to Plaintiff’s mental health history unless Plaintiff first
opens the door to introduction of such evidence.
The motion to exclude evidence regarding Plaintiff’s mental health history is GRANTED.
Page 3 of 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 11, 2019
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4