Njos v. Bureau of Prisons
Filing
220
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 188 MOTION for Judicial Review filed by Scott Njos. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 1, 2015. (kjn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SCOTT NJOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 3:12-CV-1251
(Judge Kosik)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1
I.
Statement of Facts and of the Case
Scott Njos is a federal inmate housed at the United States Penitentiary,
Lewisburg, where he is currently serving an 188-month sentence following his
conviction on bank robbery, Hobbs Act robbery, escape, and assault on a federal
officer charges. While in federal custody, Njos has amassed an extensive disciplinary
history, having been cited on dozens of occasions with prison rules infractions, many
of which involved violent or disruptive behavior by Njos in an institutional setting.
This history of recidivism and on-going institutional misconduct led to the
The parties are advised that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the district court
has orally referred the above-captioned case to the undersigned for pre-trial
management, resolution of non-dispositive motions, and preparation of reports and
recommendations on potentially dispositive matters.
1
reassignment of Njos to the Special Management Unit of the United States
Penitentiary, Lewisburg, where the plaintiff currently resides.
Njos is also a prolific litigator in federal court.2 Much of this litigation involves
Njos’ recurring complaint regarding the medical care and treatment which he receives
at the Lewisburg Penitentiary. The instant case is but one example of this growing
body of litigation brought by Njos. While this lawsuit has undergone several
transformations during the past three years that it has been pending before the court,
in its current form this case brings a single claim against a solitary defendant.
Presently, Njos is bringing a claim against the Federal Bureau of Prisons in this
case pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§504, 705, and 794(a). In essence,
Njos alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons is discriminating against him based
upon a disability which he suffers, in that federal prison official are excluding him
from prison programming based solely upon his disabilities. Njos describes these
disabilities as a history of bi-polar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, major
depressive disorder, and schizophrenia. (Doc. 83.)
See e.g., Njos v. Bledsoe, 3:12-CV-243; Njos v. Bledsoe, 3:12-CV-476;
Njos v. Thomas, 3:13-CV-2721; Njos v. Thomas, 3:13-CV-2816; Njos v. Thomas,
3:14-CV-766; Njos v. Bureau of Prisons, 3:12-CV-1251; Njos v. Kane, 3:12-CV1252; Njos v. Carney, 3:12-CV-1375; Njos v. United States, 3:15-CV-1960; Njos
v. Thomas, 3:14-CV-875.
2
-2-
Having framed his claim in this lawsuit in this fashion, Njos has now filed a
motion for judicial review, which seek favorable pre-trial rulings on the question of
whether the Bureau of Prisons has acted in accordance with its own policies, an issue
that Njos deems relevant to his claims. (Doc. 188.) This motion is, in essence, a
motion in limine, which seek evidentiary rulings in advance of any trial.
Having considered this motion, for the reasons set forth below, the motion will
be denied without prejudice to renewal of these evidentiary issues when, and if, this
case proceeds to trial.
II.
Discussion
Parties often invite courts to make pre-trial rulings on issues of prejudice,
relevance and admissibility through motions in limine. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has cautioned us, however, that “pretrial [rulings
regarding evidentiary] exclusions should rarely be granted. . . . Excluding evidence
as being more prejudicial than probative at the pretrial stage is an extreme measure
that is rarely necessary, because no harm is done by admitting it at that stage.” In re
Paoli R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829, 859 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Spain v.
Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 453 (3d Cir. 1994) (noting that the Third Circuit’s “cautious
approach to Rule 403 exclusions at the pretrial stage . . . .”). Moreover, the Third
Circuit has characterized Rule 403, the rule permitting exclusion of evidence, as a
-3-
“trial-oriented rule” such that “[p]recipitous Rule 403 determinations, before the
challenging party has had an opportunity to develop the record, are . . . unfair and
improper.” In re Paoli R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d at 859. However, “[a] trial court
is afforded substantial discretion when striking a . . . balance with respect to proffered
evidence, and a trial judge’s decision to admit or exclude evidence . . . may not be
reversed unless it is arbitrary and irrational.” McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, 582
F.3d 447, 461 (3d Cir. 2009).
This case aptly illustrates why caution is appropriate in this field. The parties’
competing submissions in this matter, in part, cast this dispute as one which entails the
balancing of questions of relevance and prejudice. Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence defines relevant evidence broadly as:
evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence.
Fed. R. Evid. 401. Rule 402 provides, further, that all “relevant” evidence shall be
admissible at trial, except as otherwise provided by other Rules of Evidence or other
law. Fed. R. Evid. 402. These broadly fashioned rules regarding relevant evidence
and its presumptive admissibility are tempered by Rule 403, which provides that:
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of
-4-
the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay,
waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Implicit in these evidentiary rules is a fundamental concept: Determinations of
relevance, probative value, and unfair prejudice involve an informed assessment of the
impact of particular proof in the specific factual context of a specific case. For these
reasons, “pretrial [rulings regarding evidentiary] exclusions should rarely be granted.
. . . Excluding evidence as being more prejudicial than probative at the pretrial stage
is an extreme measure that is rarely necessary, because no harm is done by admitting
it at that stage.” In re Paoli R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829, 859 (3d Cir. 1990).
In this case, the weighing and resolution of these evidentiary issues is, in our
view, entirely premature and inappropriate. Therefore, consistent with settled case
law, we will decline the invitation to prematurely address these issues and will deny
these motions without prejudice to renewal of argument regarding these evidentiary
issues when, and if, this case proceeds to trial.
III.
Order
For the foregoing reasons, Njos’ motion for judicial review, which seeks
favorable pre-trial rulings on the question of whether the Bureau of Prisons has acted
in accordance with its own policies, an issue that Njos deems relevant to his claims,
-5-
(Doc. 188.), is DENIED without prejudice. So ordered this 1st day of September
2015.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
-6-
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?