Hayes v. Brookhart et al

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendants' 46 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 8/29/2024. (atp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PHILIP HAYES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DEE DEE BROOKHART, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-944-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Philip Hayes, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed
the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged deprivation of his constitutional
rights at Lawrence Correctional Center. (Doc. 1). After summary judgment, Plaintiff was
allowed to proceed on the following claim:
Count 4:

Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Crawford, Brookhart,
Young, Williams, and Mayberry for their participation in sham disciplinary
proceedings.

(Doc. 49). Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the order on summary
judgment, and it remains pending.
Prior to the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment, and in anticipation of a
previous trial date that has since been vacated, Defendants filed motions in limine to exclude
certain evidence. (Doc. 46). Plaintiff did not respond. It is the movant’s burden to establish
that the evidence at issue is “inadmissible for any purpose.” Jonasson, v. Lutheran Child and
Family Svcs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). Orders in limine may be revisited at trial. Perry
Page 1 of 5

v. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 248, 252 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Luce v. U.S., 469 U.S. 38, 41-42
(1984)).
MOTION IN LIMINE No. 1: PLAINTIFF AND HIS WITNESSES SHOULD BE BARRED
FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL REGARDING THE CAUSATION OF ANY MEDICAL
OR MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff and his witnesses should be barred from testifying about
the causation of any alleged medical or mental health conditions and specifically regarding “any
diagnosed injuries, specific medical treatments, or any long-term effects the alleged actions of
Defendants caused him.” Defendants concede, however, that Plaintiff can testify as to his own
experiences as a lay person. Of course, non-experts cannot give expert opinions. Fed. R. Evid.
701. However, expert testimony is not required when “the symptoms exhibited by the plaintiff
are not beyond a layperson’s grasp,” such as when the plaintiff experienced nausea, dizziness,
vomiting, a crawling sensation on his skin, emotional and mental regression, and depression when
the defendants deprived him of his medication. See Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 659 (7th Cir. 2004)
(citing Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 360 (7th Cir.1997)). Here, Plaintiff testified at his
deposition that during segregation at Pontiac Correctional Center, his mental health deteriorated,
he was sleep-deprived, and he became suicidal. (Doc. 41-1 at 22). Those symptoms do not
appear to be beyond a layperson’s grasp. At this time, however, it is unclear what “diagnosed
injuries, specific medical treatments, or [other] long-term effects” Defendants are referring to in
their motion. Without such knowledge, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is barred from giving
such testimony. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 is DENIED but may be
revisited at trial.

Page 2 of 5

MOTION IN LIMINE No. 2: PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE BARRED FROM OFFERING
THE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF ANY MEDICAL OR MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.
Defendants ask that the Court bar Plaintiff “from offering testimony at trial as to the
statements of any treating medical professional.” Without knowing the statements to which
Defendants refer, the Court cannot determine whether those statements constitute inadmissible
hearsay. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 is DENIED but may be revisited at trial.
MOTION IN LIMINE No. 3: PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE BARRED FROM OFFERING
TESTIMONY OR OTHERWISE SUGGESTING THAT THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
WILL INDEMNIFY DEFENDANTS
Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from suggesting, referencing, or eliciting any
testimony regarding statutory indemnification by the State or any other benefit afforded them by
the State Employee Indemnification Act. Evidence that a party is insured is not admissible to
prove the party acted wrongfully. Fed. R. Evid. 411. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is
therefore GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff will not be allowed to admit evidence regarding
indemnification of Defendants for the purpose of showing that Defendants acted wrongfully.
MOTION IN LIMINE No. 4: PLAINTIFF AND HIS WITNESSES SHOULD BE BARRED
FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL REGARDING WHETHER DEFENDANTS
FOLLOWED ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES.
Defendants contend that evidence of IDOC’s policies and procedures and whether its
employees followed those procedures is not relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff’s rights were
violated. Again, Defendants do not point the Court to a particular policy at issue or a particular
employee’s actions. The issue at trial will be whether Defendants violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth
Amendment rights, and the Court cannot, at this time, find that all of IDOC’s policies and
procedures are irrelevant to that issue. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 is DENIED but may
Page 3 of 5

be revisited at trial.
MOTION IN LIMINE No. 5: PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM OFFERING
EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY OF OTHER LAWSUITS INVOLVING DEFENDANTS.
Evidence that Defendants violated other inmates’ rights is not admissible solely for the
purpose of showing that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b)(1). However, there are specific purposes for which other violations by Defendants
may be admissible, and without knowing what lawsuit(s) are at issue, the Court cannot find that
evidence of other lawsuits is barred in limine. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). Defendants’ Motion
in Limine No. 5 is DENIED but may be revisited at trial.
MOTION IN LIMINE No. 6: PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM OFFERING
EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY OF ANY MISCONDUCT, REPRIMAND, OR
COMPLAINTS ISSUED AGAINST DEFENDANTS.
The record before the Court currently reflects no previous misconduct, reprimand, or
complaint against the Defendants. To the extent prior misconduct by Defendants occurred or
allegedly occurred and is brought up at trial, the Court is currently unable to evaluate whether such
evidence is admissible for any purpose, and therefore, Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 is
DENIED.
MOTION IN LIMINE No. 7: PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM OFFERING
EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REFERENCING ANY “GOLDEN RULE” APPEAL.
Defendants request that the Court bar Plaintiff from asking the jury to put themselves in
Plaintiff’s position. “A ‘Golden Rule’ appeal in which the jury is asked to put itself in the
plaintiff’s position is universally recognized as improper because it encourages the jury to depart
from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the
evidence.” United States v. Teslim, 869 F.2d 316, 328 (7th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations and
citation omitted). Defendants’ Motion in Limine #7 is GRANTED.
Page 4 of 5

MOTION IN LIMINE No. 8: PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM OFFERING
HIS OWN GRIEVANCES, OR GRIEVANCES OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN CUSTODY,
AS EVIDENCE.
Defendants ask that Plaintiff be barred from offering his own or other inmates’ grievances
as evidence at trial because they are inadmissible hearsay, and no hearsay exception rule applies.
Fed. R. Evid. 801-804. The Court is generally inclined to find that Plaintiff’s grievances (when
offered by Plaintiff) 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. Without knowing the
specific grievances or portions of grievances that are at issue, the Court is unable to evaluate
whether Plaintiff’s or other inmates’ grievances are admissible. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion
in Limine No. 8 is DENIED but may be revisited at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2024
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5