Njos v. Kane et al
Filing
109
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, Njos motions to infer facts or for adjudication of certain facts, (Docs. 84 , 93 , and 105 .), which seek favorable pre-trial rulings on various factual questions Njos deems relevant to his lawsuit are DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 2, 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-1252
(Judge Kosik)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM 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 complaints regarding the conditions of his confinement 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 two torts claims against the United States under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1346, and 2671-2680.
Specifically, Njos alleges that the United States was negligent in the
maintenance of his cell after the cell walls were damaged during an earthquake which
struck the Eastern Seaboard in August of 2011. (Doc. 18.) According to Njos this
earthquake caused damage to his cell, which prison officials negligently failed to
repair despite Njos’ requests for repairs. This damage, in turn, created a dangerous
condition in the cell, a condition which resulted in injuries to Njos. In particular, Njos
alleges that he was standing on the toilet in his cell on August 28, 2011, cleaning the
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-
upper walls of the cell, all while resting his hand on the cell grate for support when the
“cell wall caved in were (sic) the earthquake had left cracks in the wall.” (Doc. 1, p.
2.) Plaintiff states that the bricks surrounding the grate then suddenly caved in,
causing him to fall off of the toilet and injure his knee. (Doc. 18, ¶ 11.) Njos then
couples this negligence claim with a medical negligence claim relating to what he
alleges was a delay in treating his injured knee.
Having framed his claim in this lawsuit in this fashion, Njos has now filed a
three motions to infer facts or for adjudication of certain facts, (Docs. 84, 93, and
105.), which seek favorable pre-trial rulings on various factual questions Njos deems
relevant to his claims. These motions are, in essence, motions in limine, which seek
evidentiary rulings in advance of any trial.
Having considered this motion, for the reasons set forth below, the motions 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
-3-
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
“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.
-4-
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
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).
Likewise Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which relates to
presumptions, is a trial-oriented rule which in the normal course of litigation should
not be subject to some piecemeal pre-trial adjudication. Therefore, the question of
what presumptions and inferences should apply in this case should properly await trial.
-5-
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’ motions to infer facts or for adjudication of
certain facts, (Docs. 84, 93, and 105.), which seek favorable pre-trial rulings on
various factual questions Njos deems relevant to his lawsuit are DENIED without
prejudice. So ordered this 2d 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?