Jackson v. Doe et al

Filing 149

ORDER granting 143 Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 01/31/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9
10
11
12
13

ALFONSO JACKSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN DOE; et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

3:10-cv-00771-LRH-WGC
ORDER

14
15
16

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motions in Limine No. 1 through 7 (#143). No opposition has
been filed by Plaintiff.

17

The Court rules upon the motions in the order presented:

18

A. Motion in Limine No. 1 - Seeking to Preclude Plaintiff from Pleading Inexperience,
Mental Illness or Incarceration in Order to Obtain Sympathy from the Jury.

19
20

Such commentary, discussion or testimony would clearly not be admissible under the Federal

21

Rules of Evidence. See generally Federal Rules of Evidence 401 through 403. The motion is granted

22

and Plaintiff is instructed by the Court that in no manner shall he comment or testify upon his personal

23

inexperience, mental health, physical or emotional challenges, or limitations created by the conditions

24

of his incarceration, particularly as they may contrast to the skills and resources of counsel to

25

defendants.

26

///

1

B. Motion in Limine No. 2 - Prior Settlements or Settlement Offers.

2

Any such commentary, discussion or testimony by Plaintiff is clearly inadmissible and in

3

violation of Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 408. The Plaintiff shall not make any comment or

4

reference to settlement offers to him or any other inmate.

5

C. Motion in Limine No. 3 - Seeking to Require Testimony from Plaintiff in the Form of
Questions and Answers.

6
7

The Court’s practice is to allow pro se litigants to testify in a narrative fashion provided that

8

such testimony centers upon admissible evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the event

9

the pro se party attempts to testify to matters that are not properly admissible under the Rules of

10

Evidence or the testimony tends to be irrelevant, confusing, misleading or unnecessary, the pro se party

11

will be admonished by the Court and may thereafter be required to pose the question before testifying

12

to the question’s answer. Each question will be subject to objection by the opposing party and answers

13

will only be allowed if they are directly responsive to the question posed and are admissible as

14

evidence.

15

D. Motion in Limine No. 4 - Discussion or Allegations of Prior Bad Acts by Defendants.

16

The Plaintiff shall not be allowed to introduce any evidence of alleged prior bad acts or

17

character evidence of any defendants in this case prior to reviewing such proposed evidence with the

18

Court in advance and outside of the presence of the jury. The Court cautions the Plaintiff that such

19

proposed evidence would first have to comply with all rules of evidence before it would be admissible

20

before the jury.

21

E. Motion in Limine No. 5 - Discussions Concerning Timeliness of Medical Attention
and/or Competence of Medical Providers.

22
23

Evidence of Plaintiff’s medical treatment arising from the incident in question is relevant and

24

admissible. Plaintiff will be allowed to testify concerning any claimed injuries and the medical

25

treatment which he received for such injuries. However, he may not testify concerning his personal

26

opinions of the competency of his medial providers or his opinions concerning how his injuries may
2

1

have been more properly addressed by medical providers.

2

F. Motion in Limine No. 6 - Testimony and Evidence Concerning Long Term Injuries.

3

Plaintiff will be prohibited from testifying or commenting, and is instructed not to testify or

4

comment, upon statements made by doctors, psychologists or psychiatrists who have treated him.

5

Plaintiff can testify as to his immediate physical injuries and ailments which are reasonably related in

6

time to the incident which is the subject of this litigation. However, he is not a competent witness to

7

testify to the medical causation or existence of long term injuries alleged or believed to have been

8

caused by the incident in question. Plaintiff is ordered to make no comment, discussion or to testify

9

concerning his personal opinions of long term injuries alleged to have been caused by the incident

10

which is the subject of this litigation.

11

G. Motion in Limine No. 7 - Discussing Procedural History of the Case.

12

There is nothing about the procedural history of this case that constitutes admissible evidence

13

at trial. No comment should be made by either side concerning the procedural history of this case.

14

IN CONCLUSION, the State has brought motions in limine which require no debate. Without

15

exception they all involve conduct or comment which has no place in the course of any trial. When this

16

case goes to trial, both sides will be held to the Federal Rules of Evidence and, particularly, may

17

present only admissible evidence and comment directly and reasonably related to such evidence.

18

In granting Defendants’ Motions in Limine, the Court has not ruled any differently than if these

19

matters were raised independently in the course of the trial. Both sides are cautioned to conduct

20

themselves accordingly.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED this 31st day of January, 2014.

23

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
3