Colbert v. Kempker et al

Filing 251

ORDER ruling 213 defendants' joint objections to plaintiff's proposed voir dire questions. Signed on 5/19/11 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
DARRYL COLBERT,
Plaintiff,

v.
KATHLEEN BAKER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)Case No. 07-6051-CV-SJ-FJG
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants’ Joint Objections to Plaintiff’s Proposed Voir Dire
Questions (Doc. No. 213), objecting to questions 12 and 25.

I.

BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2002, plaintiff was attacked by Bobby Williams, a fellow prisoner, and

suffered serious injuries as a result. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Baker, Carter and
Almond told Williams approximately three hours before the attack that plaintiff had reported
to prison officials that Williams and other prisoners planned to rape defendant Almond.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Baker, Carter and Almond failed to protect him from attack,
and conspired to fail to protect plaintiff.
II.

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS (Doc. No. 210)

12.

This case involves a claim by plaintiff Darryl Colbert that the Defendants– who were
employed as correctional officers– violated his legal rights by provoking
a)
b)

Do you believe a person should lose his rights to bring legal action
against prison officials when he or she is sent to a correctional facility?
Do you believe that inmates are afforded too many privileges?

c)
d)

Do you believe that persons who are serving prison time forfeit their
right to fair treatment?
For any reason would you be uncomfortable in deciding claims
brought by an inmate against a prison official?

Objection. Defendants object to the word “provoking” because such language is
argumentative and furthermore, this statement is incomplete.
Ruling: for Defendant.
25.

Is there anything about a case involving a prisoner that would bother you or prevent
you from returning a substantial verdict in favor of the Plaintiff if under the law and
the evidence the Plaintiff proves he is entitled to such a verdict?

Objection. Defendants object to the question and specifically to the word
“substantial” because such language is prejudicial. Defendants would not object
to question 25 if the word “substantial” was stricken.
Ruling: for Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 05/19/11
Kansas City, Missouri

S/FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge