Laughlin et al v. Stuart et al
ORDER denying 275 Motion in Limine; denying 305 Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas, Writs of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum, and For Service by the Marshals and Fees at Public Expense. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on 4/27/2021 (Written Opinion) (LAS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Malik Laughlin, et al.,
Case No. 19-cv-2547 (ECT/TNL)
James Stuart, et al.,
Malik Laughlin, MCF-Stillwater, 970 Pickett Street North, Bayport, MN 55003; Kenneth
Lewis, Sherburne County Jail, 13880 Business Center Drive, Elk River, MN 55330; 1 and
Michael Hari, Sherburne County Jail, 13880 Business Center Drive, Elk River, MN
55330 (pro se Plaintiffs);
Robert I. Yount, Assistant Anoka County Attorney, Government Center, 2100 Third
Avenue, Suite 720, Anoka, MN 55303 (for Defendants James Stuart, Jonathon Evans,
Lt. Sheila Larson, Sgt. Carrie Wood, and Jesse Rasmussen); and
Gary K. Luloff and Jennifer J. Crancer, Chestnut Cambronne PA, 100 Washington
Avenue South, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for Defendant Tessa Villegas).
This matter is before the Court on two motions: Plaintiff Michael Hari’s (“Hari”)
Motion in Limine (ECF No. 275); and Hari and Plaintiff Malik Laughlin’s (“Laughlin”)
Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas, Writs of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum, and For
Service by the Marshals and Fees at Public Expense (ECF No. 305). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court denies each of these motions.
Plaintiffs Hari and Laughlin both provided this address for Plaintiff Lewis. (See ECF Nos. 262, 264.) A recent search
https://inmatelocatorext.co.sherburne mn.us/inmatelocator/ (last visited April 27, 2021).
Plaintiffs Laughlin, Kenneth Lewis (“Lewis”), and Hari brought this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in August 2019. (ECF No. 1.) The allegations asserted in the operative
complaint arise from events that occurred while all three were inmates at the Anoka County
Jail. (See generally Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 311.)
Hari and Lewis are currently detained at the Sherburne County Jail. (See ECF No.
317 at 4-6.) Laughlin is incarcerated at MCF-Stillwater (See id. at 3, 6.) Pursuant to the
operative Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, this case shall be trial ready as of July 14,
2021. (ECF No. 313 ¶ 5.)
In these two motions, certain Plaintiffs make specific requests as it relates to trial in
this matter. 2 Under the operative Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, dispositive motions
are due on June 14, 2021 and, should causes of action survive any potential dispositive
motion practice, the case is scheduled to be trial ready as of July 14, 2021. (ECF No. 313
Given these developments, the two motions are premature. Hari’s motion in limine,
discusses the scope of evidence for trial. (See generally ECF No. 275.) Hari and
Laughlin’s motion requests the Clerk of Court issue and the US Marshals serve subpoenas
at government expense, pay certain witness fees, and transport all three Plaintiffs for trial.
(See generally ECF No. 305.) At this juncture, nondispositive and dispositive motion
Prior to Plaintiffs filing their Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 311) and the Court issuing an Amended
Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 313), this case was set to be trial ready on February 23, 2021. (ECF No. 82 ¶
practice is still before the Court. (See, e.g., ECF No. 317 (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge the
Time for an Amended Complaint); ECF No. 321 (Defendant Tessa Villegas’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint).)
Further, should the Court allow
Plaintiffs to amend the complaint a third time, the Court may also shift other deadlines.
The Court will deny these motions as they are not yet ripe for consideration. Should
this case survive dispositive motion practice, Plaintiffs may file trial-related motions
pursuant to the presiding District Judge’s trial procedures.
Therefore, based upon the record, memoranda, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Hari’s Motion in Limine (ECF No. 275) is DENIED.
2. Hari and Laughlin’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas, Writs of Habeas Corpus ad
Testificandum, and For Service by the Marshals and Fees at Public Expense (ECF
No. 305) is DENIED.
3. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.
[continued on next page]
4. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior consistent
order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or the
party such counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions and the
like, including without limitation: assessment of costs, fines and attorneys’ fees and
disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or limitation of witnesses,
testimony, exhibits, and other evidence; summary denial of motions; striking of
pleadings; complete or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or partial
default judgment; and/or any other relief that this Court may from time to time deem
Date: April 27 , 2021
s/Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
Laughlin, et al. v. Stuart, et al.
Case No. 19-cv-2547 (ECT/TNL)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?