Smith v. Baldwin et al

Filing 78

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART 69 MOTION in Limine filed by Kent Brookman, Jacqueline Lashbrook. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 9/19/2022. (nmf)

Case 3:19-cv-00637-RJD Document 78 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #570

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TYRONE SMITH, #N-01634,
Plaintiff,
-vsJACQUELINE LASHBROOK and
KENT BROOKMAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 19-cv-637-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Tyrone Smith, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), sets forth claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights were
violated while he was incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center and Menard Correctional
Center. Following a threshold review of Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and an order
on summary judgment, Plaintiff is proceeding to trial on an Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants Jacqueline Lashbrook and Kent Brookman for allegedly subjecting Plaintiff to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in segregation at Menard as punishment for a
disciplinary ticket.
Before the Court are the motions in limine filed by Defendants (Doc. 69). Plaintiff filed
a timely response (Doc. 73), and the undersigned heard argument regarding the motions at the
Final Pretrial Conference held on September 19, 2022.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine #1
Defendants assert Plaintiff should be barred from offering testimony or otherwise
Page 1 of 4

Case 3:19-cv-00637-RJD Document 78 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #571

suggesting the State of Illinois will indemnify Defendants. Plaintiff does not intend to offer
evidence of indemnification. Defendants’ Motion in Limine #1 is GRANTED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine #2
Defendants assert Plaintiff should be prohibited from offering evidence or testimony of
other lawsuits involving Defendants. Defendants argue such testimony is not relevant under
Federal Rule 401 and constitutes inadmissible character evidence under Rule 404(b). Defendants
also argue that even if such testimony or evidence is relevant, the danger of unfair prejudice,
misleading the jury, and confusing the issues far outweigh the probative value of such evidence.
Plaintiff asserts evidence of other lawsuits, including references and inquiries of
Defendants, is not to prove Defendants’ character, but rather to show Defendants were on notice
of the conditions at Menard Correctional Center. At the Final Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff’s
counsel explained his exhibits 3-7 include other lawsuits that name Defendants and relate to cell
conditions. Counsel explained this evidence would come in during testimony at trial to show
notice of the conditions of confinement. In response to these arguments, counsel for Defendants
asserted Defendants have never been found they had knowledge of unconstitutional cell conditions
in the cases cited by Plaintiff. Counsel for Defendants also argued these other cases are not
relevant as they were not filed by Plaintiff and, although they may relate to cells in the same
cellhouse as Plaintiff’s claims, they may not be the same cell or the same period of time.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine #2 is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine #3
Defendants assert Plaintiff should be prohibited from offering evidence or testimony of
any misconduct, reprimand, or grievance issued against Defendants. Defendants assert such
evidence is irrelevant and, even if relevant, the danger of unfair prejudice, misleading the jury, and
Page 2 of 4

Case 3:19-cv-00637-RJD Document 78 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #572

confusing the issues far outweigh the probative value of such evidence.
Plaintiff does not intend to introduce evidence of Defendants’ disciplinary history or other
misconduct or reprimands. Insofar as Defendants’ Motion in Limine #3 relates to Defendants’
disciplinary history or misconduct, the Motion is GRANTED.
Insofar as it relates to grievances written or filed against Defendants, it is TAKEN UNDER
ADVISEMENT. As Plaintiff’s counsel explained at the Final Pretrial Conference, he intends to
introduce evidence of grievances Plaintiff submitted complaining about the conditions in his cell.
The Court generally finds that grievances are inadmissible hearsay. However, such records may
be admissible if they are relevant and are not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine #4
Defendants assert Plaintiff should be prohibited from offering evidence or testimony
referencing any “Golden Rule” appeal. Plaintiff agrees that neither Plaintiff nor Defendants
should make an improper “Golden Rule” argument to the jury.

Defendants’ Motion is

GRANTED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine #5
Defendants assert Plaintiff should be prohibited from offering his own grievances as
evidence. Defendants argue Plaintiff would be offering said grievances for their truth and, as
such, they are inadmissible hearsay.
Similar to Defendants’ Motion in Limine #3, the Court generally finds that grievances are
inadmissible hearsay. However, such records may be admissible if they are relevant and are not
being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. As such, Defendants’ Motion in Limine #5 is
TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.

Page 3 of 4

Case 3:19-cv-00637-RJD Document 78 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #573

Defendants’ Motion in Limine #6
Defendants assert Plaintiff should be prohibited from offering any documents, testimony
or other evidence not expressly produced in written discovery. Plaintiff asserts he does not intend
to introduce any documents not produced in written discovery, but explains Plaintiff’s testimony
should not be limited to questions asked during deposition. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED
to the extent documentary evidence not already produced shall be barred. However, insofar as
this Motion could be construed as an attempt to bar certain testimony that may be elicited from
witnesses, it is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine #7
Defendants assert Plaintiff should be prohibited from introducing any affidavits produced
by Plaintiff or other potential witnesses during discovery. Defendants contend such evidence
would contain statements of inadmissible hearsay for which no exception applies. Plaintiff asserts
Defendants fail to cite any specific affidavit or statements that would constitute inadmissible
hearsay. The Court agrees and finds it is impossible to evaluate the admissibility of statements
that it has not reviewed. Defendants’ Motion is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 19, 2022
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4