Hagan v. Beard et al
Filing
185
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs motion in limine, excluding handwritten notes from the trial of this case (Doc. 153.), is GRANTED,. 2. Plaintiffs motion in limine which seeks to exclude extrinsic evidence of pri or institutional misconduct citations, (Doc. 154.) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED in part as follows: The defendants will not bepermitted to present extrinsic evidence of this misconduct citation, andwill not be permitted to cross examine the plaint iff regarding this matter,but defendants will be able to testify to their personal knowledgeregarding the plaintiffs prior institutional misconduct to the extent thatthese matters were known to the officers in August 2008 and informedtheir judgment regarding the quantum of force needed in this case.Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on May 15, 2013. (kjn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAMONT HAGAN,
Plaintiff
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:10-CV-883
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action brought by the plaintiff, Damont Hagan, a state
prisoner formerly housed in the Special Management Unit (SMU) of the State
Correctional Institution at Camp Hill (SCI-Camp Hill). In his complaint, the plaintiff
brings claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(2), against several present and
former SCI-Camp Hill SMU staff, alleging: (1) that the plaintiff was assaulted on
August 1, 2008, Amended Complaint ¶¶1-2, 19; and (2) that the defendants conspired
against the plaintiff to intimidate him to prevent him from testifying in violation of
42 U.S.C. §1985(2), Amended Complaint ¶¶6-8, 23.
Presently before the court are two motions in limine, filed by Hagan which seek
to exclude the following evidence: (1) three undated handwritten notes (Doc. 152.);
and (2) evidence of two misconduct charges against plaintiff and a photograph of a
sharpened comb found in plaintiff’s cell. (Doc. 154.)
With respect to these two motions in limine, the defendants have filed a
response (Doc. 169.) which concedes that the undated handwritten notes are not
admissible. Therefore, Hagan’s motion in limine relating to these notes, (Doc. 153.),
is GRANTED.
As for the evidence regarding institutional misconduct allegedly engaged in by
Hagan, which is the subject of a separate motion in limine, (Doc. 154.) the defendants
assert that they do not intend to introduce into evidence the records plaintiff attaches
to his motion documenting this alleged misconduct. Further, defendants agree that
evidence of prior misconduct by plaintiff may not be introduced to prove plaintiff’s
character in order to show that he acted consistent with that character on August 1,
2008, when defendants contend that he attempted to assault corrections officers.
Fed.R.Evid., Rule 404 (b)(1). In addition, the defendants concede that mere
misconduct that does not result in the conviction of a crime is not admissible for
purposes of impeachment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed.R.Evid.,
Rule. 609. Therefore, Hagan’s motion in limine will be GRANTED, in part, to the
extent that the defendants endeavored to present this extrinsic evidence of this alleged
misconduct or attempt to impeach Hagan by questioning him regarding these matters.
We find, however, that the defendants’ knowledge of plaintiff’s recent past
behavior may be relevant to determine whether force used in this case “was applied
in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically
for the very purpose of causing harm.” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d
Cir. 1973). Among the factors considered in determining whether force was properly
applied is “the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably
perceived by the responsible officials on the basis of the facts known.” Whitley v.
Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986). Considering this evidence in the context of the
claims brought in this case, if the individual corrections officers were aware of the
plaintiff’s prior misconduct, propensity for violence, or disciplinary issues while
incarcerated, and this information helped to form a basis to assess the threat level that
the plaintiff presented, then “knowledge of such history would be relevant to the
inquiry as to whether the force used against plaintiff was reasonable under the
circumstances.” Smith v. City of Philadelphia, Civ. A. No. 06-4312, 2009 WL
3353148, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2009) (claims of excessive force against corrections
officers) (citing Virgin Islands v. Carino, 631 F.2d 226, 229 (3d Cir. 1980) (“If it can
be established that the accused knew at the time of the alleged crime of prior violent
acts by the victim, such evidence is relevant as tending to show a reasonable
apprehension on the part of the accused.”)). Therefore limited testimony on these
matters will be permitted for this purpose to the extent that these matters were known
to the officers and informed their judgment regarding the quantum of force needed
in this case.
3
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine, excluding handwritten notes from the trial
of this case (Doc. 153.), is GRANTED,.
2.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine which seeks to exclude extrinsic evidence
of prior institutional misconduct citations, (Doc. 154.) is GRANTED, in
part, and DENIED in part as follows: The defendants will not be
permitted to present extrinsic evidence of this misconduct citation, and
will not be permitted to cross examine the plaintiff regarding this matter,
but defendants will be able to testify to their personal knowledge
regarding the plaintiff’s prior institutional misconduct to the extent that
these matters were known to the officers in August 2008 and informed
their judgment regarding the quantum of force needed in this case.
So ordered 15th day of May 2013.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?