McClenney v. Meadows
Filing
67
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 9/24/2020. (slt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
DANIEL RASHEEM MCCLENNY,
Plaintiff
v.
OFFICER STEVE WAYNE MEADOWS,
Defendants.
)
) Civil Action No. 7:18-CV-221
)
)
) By: Hon. Michael F. Urbanski
) Chief United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on a motion in limine filed by plaintiff Daniel Rasheem
McClenny, ECF No. 40, and a motion in limine filed by defendant Officer Steve Wayne
Meadows (“Officer Meadows”), ECF No. 52. McClenny seeks to exclude at trial the number
and nature of his previous felony convictions as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence.
Officer Meadows seeks to exclude at trial any reference to allegations that he physically
assaulted an inmate at any time subsequent to the incident at issue involving McClenny on
January 4, 2018 as irrelevant, unreliable, and unduly prejudicial evidence. The issues have been
fully briefed and the court heard argument on both motions on August 14, 2020.
For the reasons stated in court and articulated below, the court GRANTS in part and
DENIES in part the motion in limine filed by McClenny and takes UNDER
ADVISEMENT the motion in limine filed by Officer Meadows pending production of
documentation detailing allegations of excessive force made against Officer Meadows.
I.
McClenny brought suit under §42 U.S.C. 1983, complaining of an incident that
occurred at River North Correctional Center. He claims that on January 4, 2018, Officer
Meadows violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force in restraining
McClenny after an altercation with another prisoner. ECF No. 1, at 3.
Officer Meadows does not dispute that he bent McClenny’s fingers back in an
authorized restraint technique. Id. McClenny claims Officer Meadows applied excessive force
in executing that technique. He stated he cried out in pain and that his body reflexively resisted
the use of force. Id. His reaction triggered Officer Meadows to bend McClenny’s fingers even
further back. Id. McClenny ultimately suffered two fractures and severe angulation of his
fingers from the interaction. Id. Surgery was required on one fractured finger. Id.
McClenny filed this lawsuit on May 17, 2018. ECF No. 1. On October 26, 2018, Officer
Meadows filed for summary judgment, requesting all claims be resolved in his favor, which
the court denied. Meadows Mot. for Sum. J., ECF No. 21; Order, ECF No. 30. On February
10, 2020, Officer Meadows filed the motion in limine at issue, seeking to exclude at trial
excessive force allegations made against him. Meadows Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 40.
Specifically, Officer Meadows seeks to exclude an alleged instance of excessive force that
occurred approximately eight (8) months after McClenny’s altercation. 1 In that incident,
Officer Meadows was accused of using excessive force on a different inmate, resulting in
injuries to that inmate’s shoulder. On July 26, 2019, he was indicted in the Circuit Court of
Grayson County for malicious wounding, in violation of Virginia Code §18.2-51; but on
January 24, 2020, the indictment was dismissed by order of nolle prosequi. Mem. in Support
1 In his opposition to Office Meadows’ motion in limine, McClenny argues for his right to introduce two
instances of alleged excessive force: (1) an incident with an inmate that occurred eight months after his injury;
and (2) an incident underlying the Grayson County indictment for malicious wounding. However, at the
hearing, counsel for McClenny confirmed that the incident that occurred eight months after McClenny’s is the
same one underlying the indictment. As McClenny does not have additional information regarding the facts
giving rise to the indictment, he conceded that the two supposed instances might be the same.
2
of Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 41, at 2. As of the hearing on the instant motions, neither party
had additional details about the underlying incident.
On February 10, 2020, McClenny made an oral motion to appoint counsel, ECF No.
44, which the court granted, ECF No. 45. On May 6, 2020, McClenny filed his motion in
limine, seeking to preclude the number and nature of his previous felony convictions and
charges from use at trial. ECF No. 52. McClenny was convicted in 2012 for assault. In 2013
he was convicted of rape and aggravated sexual battery of a minor. He has also been charged
with malicious wounding, attempted robbery, armed common law burglary, conspiracy to
commit a felony, and felonious use of a firearm; however, the final dispositions of these
charges have not been verified. ECF No. 53, at fn. 1. McClenny is currently incarcerated at
Lawrenceville Correctional Center and has a release date set for October 4, 2040.
II.
Officer Meadows filed a motion in limine to exclude the introduction of excessive force
allegations against him at trial. McClenny argues he should be able to introduce one specific
allegation of excessive force, while reserving the right to introduce others should they be
uncovered during discovery. He seeks to use as evidence accusations that Officer Meadows
applied excessive force in executing “a takedown” eight months after his own incident, which
resulted in injuries to another inmate’s shoulder. ECF No. 41, at 2. McClenny argues this
specific act is admissible as evidence of Officer Meadows’ state of mind and lack of mistake.
Counsel for Officer Meadows represented that this alleged instance predicated his
Grayson County indictment for malicious wounding. Six months after the indictment, the case
was dismissed nolle prosequi. Officer Meadows believes the underlying incident is irrelevant
3
because it did not involve application of the “keylock procedure” 2 at issue in this case. Id.
Moreover, he claims McClenny is attempting to paint Officer Meadows as a bad actor using
the specific instance as impermissible character evidence. Finally, he argues that dismissal of
the indictment and the fact that neither party can confirm the veracity of the underlying
allegations renders the evidence unreliable. Officer Meadows believes that permitting evidence
about these prior unsubstantiated allegations would impermissibly besmirch Officer Meadows’
character in the eyes of a jury. Accordingly, Officer Meadows believes this evidence should be
excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 401, as irrelevant, 404(b), as improper
character evidence, and FRE 403, as unduly prejudicial. Id., at 1.
First, he claims that since the allegations of excessive force giving rise to the indictment
did not involve application of the “keylock procedure” he had used against McClenny and
resulted in injuries of a different kind, the allegations are irrelevant and inadmissible under
FRE 401. 3 The court finds this argument unavailing. Credible evidence that a correctional
officer exceeded the bounds of permissible force against an inmate a second time is relevant
to an excessive force claim, regardless of the specific restraint technique used or injuries
sustained. If substantiated, the allegations would support the fact that Officer Meadows
intended to use excessive force, and that the injuries he inflicted on McClenny were not the
result of an accident.
2
This procedure refers to the authorized restraint technique applied on McClenny of bending a subject’s fingers
backwards.
Fed. R. Evid. 401: 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. Evid. 402: Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
3
4
Second, Officer Meadows claims that McClenny seeks to introduce the subsequent
incident as improper character evidence in violation of FRE 404(b), used to suggest Officer
Meadows acted in conformity with his bad character. 4 However, while FRE 404(b) forbids
using specific bad acts as evidence of bad character, it permits their use to prove motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, knowledge, lack of an accident, or absence of a mistake. See
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). As such, the facts of the subsequent incident are potentially admissible
as evidence of Officer Meadows’ intent and the lack of mistake in his application of force.
Third, Officer Meadows argues that even if the bad acts are admissible under FRE 401
and 404(b), they must be excluded under FRE 403, as unduly prejudicial. He claims that the
nature of correctional facility work entails accruing many, often baseless, allegations of
excessive force and so the probative value of any one allegation is substantially outweighed by
the prejudice against him under FRE 403. 5 He argues that a jury would not be privy to the
nature of correctional work and would place undue importance on the existence of a single,
unsubstantiated claim of excessive force. Additionally, Officer Meadows points to the fact that
McClenny cannot show that the allegation was credible. He remonstrates against the use of an
indictment that was dismissed by order of nolle prossequi, arguing that this exercise of
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b): (b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character
in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such
as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of
accident. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends
to offer at trial; and
(B) do so before trial — or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.
5 Fed. R. Evid. 403: The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
4
5
prosecutorial discretion is fatal to the allegation’s credibility. ECF No. 41 at 4; See Va. Code §
19.2–265.3 (providing that “[n]olle prosequi shall be entered only in the discretion of the court,
upon motion of the Commonwealth with good cause therefor shown”); United States v.
Blevins, 892 F. Supp. 2d 754, 757 fn. 4 (E.D. Va. 2012) (stating that the prosecutor has
discretion to exercise the right to dismiss charges nolle prosequi). He argues further that
McClenny’s only support for the allegation is the existence of a supposed report that neither
party has had the opportunity to review. In sum, he maintains that permitting such unreliable
evidence would be prejudicial, contravening FRE 403.
Although the court finds that specific instances of excessive force used against an
inmate potentially may be relevant to the case to demonstrate intent and lack of mistake under
FRE 404(b), it agrees with Officer Meadows that the allegations must be credible to be
admissible. McClenny must do more than gesture to the existence of these allegations to
overcome the FRE 403 barrier of undue prejudice. While the allegations may be admissible
even if the prosecution was dismissed and Officer Meadows was not convicted, the court
cannot admit the vague allegation without additional documentation supporting its veracity.
The court thereby takes the motion in limine UNDER ADVISEMENT, pending
production of all records related to allegations of excessive force made against Officer
Meadows in the two years prior to and the two years after the McClenny incident. The court
invites the parties to provide supplemental briefing on the issue after reviewing the records
procured relating to these incidents by October 31, 2020, at which juncture the court will
revisit the issue of their admissibility.
III.
6
McClenny seeks to exclude his criminal history from use at trial as irrelevant to the
claims at hand and unduly prejudicial. First, he states that the case is focused on a correctional
officer’s alleged use of excessive force on an inmate, and so the aggrieved party’s criminal
history has no bearing on the merits of the claims under FRE 401. Second, he claims that
under FRE 403, the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its undue
prejudice. Namely, even if Officer Meadows had a permissible theory of relevance to introduce
McClenny’s criminal history, the evidence must still be excluded because the number and
nature of his previous felonies would unfairly prejudice him in the eyes of the jurors. Officer
Meadows argues that under FRE 609, he is entitled to introduce McClenny’s criminal history
to attack his credibility, including the number and nature of his felony convictions, because
each of his prior convictions occurred within the past ten years. 6
The court finds that under FRE 609, the fact that McClenny is a convicted felon is
relevant and admissible to undermine his credibility, but that under FRE 403, the number and
nature of his convictions is unduly prejudicial and therefore inadmissible. First, the court finds
that McClenny’s previous convictions are not for crimes of dishonesty and therefore have little
bearing on his capacity for truthfulness as a witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 609 Conference Report
on Rule 609(a) (explaining that crimes of dishonesty involve some form of deceit). The Fourth
Fed. R. Evid. 609:
(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness's character for truthfulness by evidence of
a criminal conviction: (1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by
imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence: (A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case
(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have
passed since the witness's conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the
conviction is admissible only if: (1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances,
substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written
notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.
6
7
Circuit has held that Rule 609(a)(2) covers only “a narrow class of crimes which by their nature
bear directly upon the witness’ propensity to testify truthfully.” United States v. Kelly, 510
F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Collier, 527 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2008)
(specifying that crimes of dishonesty contain an element of deceit which is associated with
convictions like perjury).
Second, the court finds that the statutory names and details of the convictions would
be unduly prejudicial to McClenny because of the genuine risk that the jury would perceive
this information as character evidence. Joyner v. O’Neil, No. 3:10CV406, 2012 WL 2576355,
at *5 (E.D. Va. July 3, 2012) (finding plaintiff-inmate’s prior convictions of robbery, use of a
firearm, abduct with intent to extort money, armed statutory burglary, and aggravated
malicious wounding were likely to be seen as violent offenses and evidence of bad character
and were otherwise irrelevant to the question of plaintiff’s capacity for truthfulness in an 8th
Amendment excessive force case). Additionally, the court finds that the number of convictions
carries a similar prejudicial effect, bearing little weight on the plaintiff’s credibility to testify
while carrying the potential of painting him as an individual with bad character. Id. In a case
bearing heavily on the jury’s likelihood of crediting one party’s version of events over the
other’s, the impact of character bias is significant. In particular, the court is cognizant of the
highly stigmatized nature of sexual assault crimes, especially those involving a minor, and find
that the risk of bias arising from these offenses is especially concerning. Moreover, the court
finds that a limiting instruction is unlikely to cure the defect.
Officer Meadows will not be permitted to introduce or allude to the specific nature of
the crimes, the number of convictions, or the length of the sentence McClenny is facing.
8
Should McClenny testify at trial, Officer Meadows will be permitted to cross-examine
McClenny on whether he is a convicted felon, as the fact of his convictions goes to his
credibility as a witness, but not the details of his convictions. Given that the incident occurred
in a state correctional facility, the court notes that the jury is already on notice that the plaintiff
in this suit was incarcerated.
IV.
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the
motion in limine filed by McClenny and takes UNDER ADVISEMENT the motion in
limine filed by Officer Meadows, pending production of supplementary documentation. The
court DIRECTS Officer Meadows to procure to McClenny within 14 days any
documentation referencing allegations of excessive force made against Officer Meadows in
the period two years before and two years after the incident at issue in this case. The court
further DIRECTS Officer Meadows to redact from the documents sensitive information that
might compromise the security of any person or the institution. The court GRANTS each
party the opportunity to file supplemental briefing on the issue of Officer Meadows’ motion
in limine by October 31, 2020. The briefs may reference the records produced by Officer
Meadows and, as appropriate, defendant may move to have the documents filed under seal.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Entered:
September 24, 2020
Michael F. Urbanski
Chief U.S. District Judge
2020.09.24 10:57:21 -04'00'
Michael F. Urbanski
Chief United States District Judge
9
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?