Gibson v. Ingraham, et al.

Filing 414

ORDER granting 407 Motion in Limine: The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants' motion in limine (Dkt. No. 407) is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 6/3/21. (ban)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
BENNIE GIBSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
1:10-CV-968
(MAD/TWD)
BRAD IGRAHAM, Coxsackie
Correctional Facility, and JASON YUNG,
Coxsackie Correctional Facility,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

NIXON, PEABODY LAW FIRM
677 Broadway, 10th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Attorneys for Plaintiff

DANIEL J. HURTEAU, ESQ.

OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants

KEITH J. STARLIN, AAG
LAUREN ROSE EVERSLEY, AAG

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
On August 11, 2010, Plaintiff, Bennie Gibson, commenced this action, asserting claims
arising out of his confinement at Coxsackie Correctional Facility. See Dkt. No. 1. On October
23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Dancks issues an Order and Report-Recommendation recommending
the Court grant Defendants Maher, Allen, Bushane, and Schreurs' Motion for Summary

1

Judgment. Dkt. No. 232. Judge Khan adopted Magistrate Judge Dancks' order on December 15,
2014. Dkt. No. 241. Following the Court's order, the only claims that remain are Plaintiff's claim
for excessive force against Defendant Brad Ingraham and failure to protect against Defendant
Jason Yung. See Dkt. Nos. 50, 232.
Currently before the Court is Defendants' pre-trial motion in limine. Dkt. No. 407. In
their motion, Defendants have moved for the Court's permission to inquire into the essential facts
of Plaintiff's felony convictions on cross-examination pursuant to Rule 609(a) of the Federal
Rules of Evidence and also have moved for an instruction to the jury that, as a matter of fact and
law, Plaintiff initiated the use of force on August 26, 2011. See Dkt. No. 407. Plaintiff filed a
letter with the Court stating that he does not oppose Defendants' motion in limine. See Dkt. No.
409. As there is no objection, Defendants' motion is granted.
After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions and the
applicable law, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendants' motion in limine (Dkt. No. 407) is GRANTED; and the Court
further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order in accordance with
the Local Rules
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2021
Albany, New York

2