Moore v. Palmer et al

Filing 148

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 98 Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous Facts, Argument or References to the Plaintiff's Criminal History, Prior Bad Acts or Findings of Misconduct, or References to the Dismissal of Prior Defendants. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MAURICE MOORE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-14783
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CARMEN PALMER et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXTRANEOUS FACTS,
ARGUMENT OR REFERENCES TO THE PLAINTIFF’S CRIMINAL
HISTORY, PRIOR BAD ACTS OR FINDINGS OF MISCONDUCT, OR
REFERENCES TO THE DISMISSAL OF PRIOR DEFENDANTS (ECF #98)
Plaintiff Maurice Moore (“Moore”) is a former inmate of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). Moore asserts that Defendants violated his
Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him while being aware of threats
against his safety while he was incarcerated in the MDOC. (See Compl., ECF #1.)
On November 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous
Facts, Argument or References to the Plaintiff’s Criminal History, Prior Bad Acts or
Findings of Misconduct, or References to the Dismissal of Prior Defendants” (the
“Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous Facts”). (See ECF #98.)
On March 6, 2018, the Court held a final pretrial conference in this matter in
which it heard argument on the Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous Facts.
1

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on March 6, 2018, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous Facts
(ECF #98) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. The Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous Facts is GRANTED to
the extent it seeks to exclude the admission of the “Special Problem
Offender Notice(s)” (“SPONs”) listed as Defendants’ proposed
Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 7, as identified on ECF #144 at Pg. ID 1825.
However, Defendants may present testimony (1) explaining the
purpose and use of SPONs at the MDOC’s facilities and (2) detailing
the number of SPONs in Plaintiff’s MDOC file and the respective dates
and associated locations of those SPONs.
b. The Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous Facts is GRANTED to
the extent it seeks to exclude the admission of Defendants’ proposed
Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11, as identified on ECF #144 at Pg. ID 1825.
c. The Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous Facts is DENIED to the
extent is seeks to exclude the admission of Defendants’ proposed
Exhibit 12, as identified on ECF #144 at Pg. ID 1825. However, if
Defendant secures admission of Exhibit 12, the Court will provide a
limiting instruction to the jury that the statements in the “STG Activity”
section of Exhibit 12 cannot be considered for the truth of the matter
2

asserted but only as it relates to whether Defendants had knowledge of
those statements.
d. The Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous Facts is DENIED to the
extent it seeks to prevent all references to Plaintiff’s alleged gang
affiliation. As Court explained at the hearing, non-hearsay evidence
concerning alleged gang affiliation may be properly admitted.
e. The Motion in Limine to Exclude Extraneous Facts is GRANTED to
the extent it seeks to prevent Defendants from (1) referring to claims
that were previously dismissed in this action or (2) identifying
individuals as Defendants who were dismissed from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 7, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on March 7, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3