HOPKINS et al v. CITY OF CALAIS POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 153

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE - granting in part and denying in part 129 Motion in Limine. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RICHARD HOPKINS
JAMES HOPKINS,

AND

PLAINTIFFS
V.

DAVID CLARONI,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-229-DBH

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
The defendant’s Motion in Limine (ECF No. 129) is GRANTED

IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.

Evidence of costs or expenses related to the defense of the criminal

proceedings against the plaintiff James Hopkins is excluded. The general rule is
that any damages for false arrest end upon the issuance of process or
arraignment. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994). James Hopkins
has given no evidence why the general rule should not apply here. See, e.g.,
Burke v. McDonald, 572 F.3d 51, 58 (1st Cir. 2009). I understand from the
summary judgment proceedings that James Hopkins went to trial, endured a
mistrial and ultimately entered a nolo contendere plea. See Decision and Order
on Cross-Mots. for Summ. J. and Def.’s Mot. to Strike 4 (ECF No. 87). There is
no claim for malicious prosecution in this case, and there could not be, given the
plaintiff James Hopkins’ eventual entry of a nolo contendere plea. Id.; see also,
Steeves v. City of Rockland, 600 F. Supp. 2d 143, 182 (D. Me. 2009) (“To make

out [a malicious prosecution] claim, a plaintiff must prove not only that criminal
proceedings were instituted against him without probable cause and with malice,
but also show that he received a favorable termination of the proceedings.”)
(quotation marks omitted); Richards v. Town of Eliot, 2001 ME 132, ¶ 33, 780
A.2d 281, 293 (“To succeed in her state law claim for malicious prosecution, [the
plaintiff] must prove that criminal proceedings were instituted against her
without probable cause and with malice, and that she received a favorable
termination of the proceedings.”) (quotation marks omitted).
2.

I reserve ruling on the admissibility of the defendant Claroni’s

occupations or hobbies outside law enforcement until I hear his testimony.
3.
testimony.

I reserve ruling on how the pro se plaintiffs may present their own
I understand that Magistrate Judge Nivison has discussed this

matter with the parties and will do so again before or after jury empanelment in
search of a practical solution.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2