MORRIS v. BAKOS et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 55 Motion in Limine to Exclude Introduction of Confidential Department of Corrections Security Policies. It is further Ordered that Defendants are not required to turn the policies over to Plaintiff and the policies will not be admissible at trial, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 10/31/2016. (dlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAQUILLE MORRIS,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-201

)

v.

)

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

)

R. BAKOS AND JOSEPH DUPONT,

)
)

Defendants.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I.

Introduction
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Introduction

of Confidential Department of Corrections Security Policies (ECF No. 55). For the reasons
that follow, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.

II.

Background
Plaintiff Shaquille Morris is a prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections ("DOC"). The events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in
October and November of 2013, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at SCI-Somerset. Plaintiff
brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his First Amendment rights were
violated when he received two misconduct reports in retaliation for filing two grievances.
Named as Defendants are R. Bakos, a Lieutenant at the DOC, and Joseph Dupont, the
hearing examiner who presided over both misconduct hearings. Defendants deny that
the issuance of the misconduct reports was improper. On February 8, 2016, this Court
adopted a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy

recommending that Defendants' summary judgment motion be denied.

Trial is

scheduled to begin on November 7, 2016.

III.

Discussion
Defendants have moved to exclude introduction at trial of internal DOC security

policies. (ECF No. 55.) Plaintiff indicated at the pretrial conference that he would like to
receive from the DOC, and introduce at trial, portions of the prison's internal policy
regarding the operation of video cameras during incidents involving the use of force.
(ECF No. 53.) Defendants argue in their Motion that Plaintiff failed to request the policy
in discovery, the policy is confidential and "to provide these materials to an inmate in
custody would jeopardize institutional security," and the policy is not relevant to the case.
(ECF No. 56.)
Defendants are correct that the policies relating to the operation of video cameras
are not relevant to the issues presented by this case. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
evidence is relevant if "(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the
action." FED. R. Evm. 401. Plaintiff's claims are for violations of his First Amendment
rights. (ECF No. 41 at 5.) He alleges that he was subjected to excessive force on two
occasions, for which he filed grievances against the corrections officers and that
Defendants retaliated by issuing misconduct citations. (Id. at 2.) Defendants take the
position that when they investigated his grievances, they concluded that Plaintiff was
lying about the underlying incidents and thus issued misconducts. (Id. at 2-3.)

2

As the

Court explained in denying summary judgment, one of the elements Plaintiff must prove
is that he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment. Whether or not Plaintiff
engaged in protected activity in this case hinges on whether or not Plaintiff lied about the
incidents he claims amounted to excessive force when he filed the grievances. (Id. at 5.)
While there is video footage of the altercations in question, the Court found the footage to
be inconclusive, in large part because the camera was pointed at the floor during much of
the pertinent portion of the video. (Id.)
Understandably frustrated by this error, Plaintiff seeks introduction of the prison's
policy regarding operation of cameras during such incidents. While Plaintiff will be free
to make any number of arguments regarding the video footage at trial, the prison policies
in question ultimately have no bearing on whether or not he lied or whether or not
Defendants retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.

The

corrections officer who was operating the video camera is not a defendant in this case, did
not inflict the alleged excessive force on Plaintiff, and did not issue the misconducts to
Plaintiff. As Defendants note, "what the policy states or requires is not important; rather,
the critical issue for trial is what the videos depict." (ECF No. 56 at 3.) Common sense
dictates that the camera should, ideally, not have been pointed at the ground. Whether or
not this error was explicitly contrary to policy, however, does not advance the ball on any
of the disputed issues to be decided at trial. Therefore, the Court concludes that the
policies are not relevant under Rule 401.
In addition to the lack of relevance, the Court finds Defendants' security concerns
to be valid. Turning over information regarding the internal workings of prison security
3

to an inmate may pose a danger to correction officers and other inmates. Other courts
have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Houser v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., No. 13CV-1068, 2015 WL 757552, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2015); Paluch v. Dawson, No. CIV. l:CV06-01751, 2007 WL 4375937, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2007). The security concerns coupled
with the lack of relevance warrant exclusion of the policies as evidence at trial.

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion in Limine.
An appropriate order follows.

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAQUILLE MORRIS,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-201

)

v.

)

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

)

R. BAKOS AND JOSEPH DUPONT,

)
)

Defendants.

)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants'
Motion in Limine to Exclude Introduction of Confidential Department of Corrections
Security Policies (ECF No. 55), in accordance with the attached memorandum opinion, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are not required to tum the policies
over to Plaintiff and the policies will not be admissible at trial.

BY THE COURT:

KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE