Alexander v. Hoffman et al

Filing 104

ORDER on Plaintiff's and Defendants' 86 , 95 Motions in Limine. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

D’ANDRE M. ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,

4:16-cv-12069

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG

v.
ANN HOFFMAN, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S AND
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

Presently before the Court are two omnibus motions in limine filed

in advance of the September 24, 2019 trial of this matter. Plaintiff
through his motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence of his criminal
history, prison disciplinary record, and litigation history. Defendants
Ann Hoffman and Scotty Freed in turn ask to exclude evidence relating
to Plaintiff’s previously dismissed claims, alleged comments by Deputy
Warden O’Bell T. Winn, previously a defendant in this lawsuit, and
evidence related to alleged violations of Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”) policy. For the reasons stated in open court during
the final pretrial conference that took place on September 19, 2019, and
as described below, Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 86) will be
granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 95)
granted in part and denied in part.

A. Plaintiff’s criminal history
Plaintiff asserts that evidence of his past criminal convictions and
prison disciplinary record should be largely excluded at trial because
such evidence has no probative value and is likely to cause him prejudice.
Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff’s motion. Moreover, during the
final pretrial conference in this matter, the parties explicitly agreed that
any evidence or argument relating to the facts and circumstances of
Plaintiff’s crimes should be excluded at trial. Plaintiff has expressed the
intention to refer to the fact of his conviction and the type of crime during
his opening statement. Defendant has no objection to this limited
reference. The parties may therefore reference the fact that Plaintiff has
been convicted of the offenses for which he is currently incarcerated but
may not refer to the underlying facts concerning those offenses.
B. Plaintiff’s disciplinary record
Plaintiff next seeks to exclude evidence of his institutional
disciplinary history. Defendants opposed this request at the final pretrial
conference. Because Plaintiff’s remaining claims are inextricable from
certain grievances he filed while incarcerated at the Saginaw
Correctional Facility, and from a misconduct hearing that resulted in
disciplinary action against him, the Court will permit introduction of that
evidence of his past grievances and disciplinary history which is relevant
to assessing his remaining claims. Other past grievances or disciplinary
history that are unrelated to the facts and claims at issue in this case will
2

be excluded at trial because they are not relevant and more prejudicial
than probative.
C. Plaintiff’s litigation history
Plaintiff further seeks to exclude evidence related to other lawsuits
he has filed because he believes such evidence is irrelevant and has no
probative value. Defendants argue that evidence of Plaintiff’s past and
subsequent lawsuits should be admitted at trial to demonstrate that he
is litigious. The Court finds that any lawsuits Plaintiff has filed other
than the instant action are irrelevant to evaluating his current claims. It
will accordingly exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s past and subsequent
litigation with the caveat that statements Plaintiff or any witnesses have
made in past lawsuits may be considered relevant if they appear
inconsistent with statements made by those individuals during their
testimony in this case.
D. Reference to previously dismissed claims
Defendants seek to exclude testimony about claims originally
asserted by Plaintiff that have since been dismissed. Plaintiff generally
does not object. On the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mona
Majzoub, this Court indeed dismissed several of Plaintiff’s claims,
including for civil conspiracy and retaliatory transfer. See ECF No. 64
(Sep. 27, 2018 Report and Recommendation); ECF No. 72 (Mar. 25, 2019
Order). Evidence relating only to those previously dismissed claims has
minimal probative value and if introduced would create a significant risk
3

of creating undue delay and wasted time at trial. See Moore v. Bannon,
No. 10-12801, 2012 WL 2154274, at *7 (E.D. Mich. June 13, 2012).
Accordingly, evidence relating only to previously dismissed claims will be
excluded on relevance grounds to avoid undue delay and wasting time—
with the exception that the parties may introduce evidence relevant to
Plaintiff’s transfer to Kinross Correctional Facility to the extent it is
relevant to proving his alleged damages.
E. Comments by Deputy Warden O’Bell T. Winn
Defendants next seek to bar evidence about comments by a former
defendant in this case, Deputy Warden O’Bell T. Winn. ECF No. 95,
PageID.745–46. Specifically, Defendants seek to bar reference to Winn’s
alleged comment that Plaintiff “brought this shit on himself.” Id.
Defendants contend that “whether Winn said what [P]laintiff alleges he
said has no tendency to make a fact in either of the two remaining claims
more or less probable than it would be without this evidence.” Id. at
PageID.746. Plaintiff has no objection to exclusion of this evidence at
trial. The Court agrees evidence of the referenced comments by
previously dismissed defendant Winn lacks probative value and should
be excluded.
F. Reference to alleged violation of MDOC policies
Finally, Defendants argue that evidence relating to various prison
officials’ alleged violations of MDOC policies should be excluded as
irrelevant. The Court finds that evidence of general violations of MDOC
4

policy not directly connected to Plaintiff’s remaining claims is likely
irrelevant and should be excluded at trial. But evidence of violations of
MDOC policy that have a tendency to make a fact of consequence to
Plaintiff’s claims more or less probable may be relevant and admissible.
The Court will reexamine relevance of this type of evidence during trial.
CONCLUSION
“A ruling on a motion in limine is no more than a preliminary, or
advisory, opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district
court.” United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994). The
Court at this juncture GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 86) and GRANTS IN PART and
DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No. 95). The
Court may revisit or expand upon these evidentiary rulings at a later
date.
Dated: September 24, 2019

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed, and the
parties and/or counsel of record were served on September 24, 2019.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

5