Northcraft v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 48 and 49 Motions; granting 50 , 51 , and 52 Motions and denying the 53 and 54 Motions. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/17/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)

Case 2:20-cv-00100 Document 61 Filed 06/17/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 500

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
BRIAN NORTHCRAFT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00100

WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Criminal Convictions
(Document 48), Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Prison Disciplinary Record Unrelated to
Subject Incident (Document 49), Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 1) to Exclude Testimony
Regarding Accusations of Other Instances of Misconduct (Document 50), Defendants’ Motion in
Limine (No. 2) to Preclude Plaintiff’s Alleged Future Damages at Trial (Document 51),
Defendant’s Motion in Limine (No. 3) to Preclude Use of Employment Documents and Evidence
Related to Timothy Hale (Document 52), Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 4) to Prohibit Use of
the Term “Mace” in Place of OC Spray (Document 53), Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 5) to
Bifurcate Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages (Document 54), Defendants’ Response to
Plaintiff’s “Motion in Limine to Exclude Criminal Conviction” (Document 56), Defendants’
Response to Plaintiff’s “Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Prison Disciplinary Record
Unrelated to Subject Incident” (Document 57), Plaintiff’s Response to Motion in Limine (No. 1)

Case 2:20-cv-00100 Document 61 Filed 06/17/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 501

to Exclude Testimony Regarding Accusations of Other Instances of Misconduct (Document 58),
and all attendant documentation. The Plaintiff did not file a response to the Defendants’ motion
No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, or No. 5 by the response deadline of June 11, 2021, as set forth in this Court’s
First Amended Scheduling Order. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the motions
set forth in Documents 50, 51, 52, and 53 should be granted, the motions set forth in Documents
48 and 49 should be granted in part and denied in part, and the motion set forth in Document 54
should be denied.
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Criminal Convictions
The Plaintiff argues that his criminal convictions are not relevant or probative and should
therefore be excluded. However, if such convictions are deemed relevant, the Plaintiff argues
they should be excluded by Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because any probative value will be
substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. The Defendant claims that the convictions are
probative of the Plaintiff’s credibility and since his case rests solely on his testimony, the
convictions should be admissible.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude criminal convictions should
be granted to exclude all convictions except his conviction for attempted escape. The Court finds
that the convictions of burglary, attempt to commit sexual assault in the second degree and sexual
abuse in the first degree are not probative of credibility or of any of the elements or defenses to
the claim at issue in the Complaint. Furthermore, to the extent that these convictions have
probative value, it is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, given the nature of the
convictions and the claim at issue in the Complaint. The Plaintiff’s conviction for attempted
2

Case 2:20-cv-00100 Document 61 Filed 06/17/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 502

escape, however, is probative and admissible given the Defendants version of the facts that the
precautions undertaken to transport the Defendant were based on his prior attempt to escape.
B. Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Unrelated Prison Disciplinary Record
The Plaintiff argues that his disciplinary record is not relevant, could be unduly prejudicial,
and that he was not disciplined for the event alleged in the Complaint. He also argues that the
Defendants are not expected to testify that they had knowledge of the Plaintiff’s disciplinary
record. The Defendants respond that they do not intend to use any evidence related to incidents
for which the Plaintiff was disciplined as an inmate. However, they do intend to use the escape
conviction and the “specific instances of conduct by Plaintiff to attempt to escape from custody”
which he admitted in his Harrison County guilty plea. (Document 57 at 2.)
The Plaintiff’s motion is granted with respect to the admission of evidence relative to his
disciplinary record. The Defendants, of course, will be permitted to admit evidence of the
Plaintiff’s escape conviction, itself, as the same is relevant to the defense related to the precautions
which were taken to transport the Plaintiff. However, evidence of the “specific instances of
conduct” or the particulars of the escape will be limited to the fact that the attempted escape
occurred during transport. Again, that evidence is probative of the Defendant’s claims regarding
the precautions that were taken to transport the Plaintiff.
C. Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Other Accused Instances of Misconduct
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not properly disclosed 404(b) evidence
regarding allegations of wrongs or acts committed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff and that
evidence of other interactions between Defendant Hale and the Plaintiff should be excluded. The

3

Case 2:20-cv-00100 Document 61 Filed 06/17/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 503

Plaintiff’s only response is that he expects evidence of the facts contained in paragraphs 10 and 11
of the Complaint to be testified to by both the Plaintiff and Defendant Hale.
After review of the motion and the Plaintiff’s response, the Court finds that the motion
should be granted. The Court has very few facts on which to base a decision, but a reading of
paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Complaint would indicate that the evidence is being submitted to
prove that Defendant Hale acted in conformity with the December 2017 incident. Thus, the
evidence is inadmissible under Rule 404(b) unless somehow “opened up” by the Defendants.
Although the Plaintiff argues the prior statements made in 2017 reveal Defendant Hale’s motive
and state of mind, there is no evidence offered to connect that incident, by motive or otherwise,
with the instant case.
D. Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Alleged Future Damages
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not specifically requested or presented any
evidence of future damages and, in response to discovery requests, did not specifically inform the
Defendants of such a request. As noted above, the Plaintiff did not file a response to this motion
in limine.
The Court finds that the motion should be granted. Given the type of injury alleged by
the Plaintiff, it is not of a kind that a lay person could determine the future effects of such injury,
either physical or emotional. The Plaintiff did not set forth any evidence or argument regarding
the permanency of the injuries or the future effect of such injuries. The Plaintiff’s physical
injuries included a chipped tooth and a chemical burn on his forehead. However, both conditions
were treated, and no demonstration has been made that future treatment is necessary.

4

Case 2:20-cv-00100 Document 61 Filed 06/17/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 504

E. Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Employment Documents and Evidence for Timothy
Hale
The Defendants move to exclude evidence of Defendant Hale’s employment documents.
Specifically, the Defendants move to preclude the Plaintiff from presenting evidence of the
allegations and suspension of Defendant Hale related to the sexual harassment of a nurse that took
place ten years prior to the events alleged in the Complaint. Again, the Plaintiff filed no response
to this motion.
The Court finds that the motion should be granted.

The Plaintiff has presented no

evidence or argument to show how the allegations against, and suspension of, Defendant Hale are
relevant. The alleged offense is not of a similar nature as that at issue in this case and the Plaintiff
has set forth no other arguments to support its admission.
F. Defendants’ Motion to Prohibit Use of Term “Mace” in Place of OC Spray
The Defendants move to preclude the Plaintiff or his attorney from referring to OC spray
as “mace.” According to the Defendants, mace is more toxic than OC spray, caused more serious
effects, and is a manmade substance that is no longer in use. The Plaintiff did not file a response
to this motion.
The Court finds that the motion should be granted. The chemical used should be referred
to by its appropriate and accurate name. Since no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the
substance used was actually “mace,” the use of that term to refer to the OC spray is prohibited.
G. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages should be bifurcated
so that the Defendants, particularly the WVDCR, are not prejudiced. They argue that the Plaintiff

5

Case 2:20-cv-00100 Document 61 Filed 06/17/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 505

cannot establish punitive damages against the WVDCR, and evidence of punitive damages will
confuse the jury and prejudice this Defendant. The Plaintiff submitted no response to the motion.
The Court finds that the motion should be denied. Given the allegations in the Complaint,
the evidence that supports punitive damages against the individual Defendants will be essentially
the same evidence that establishes liability. As example, evidence demonstrating the nature and
extent of the force used, the words spoken, the alleged refusal to remove the OC spray from the
Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff received medical attention goes toward both the Defendants’
liability and punitive damages. As it relates to the WVDCR, the Court can address any potential
prejudice with limiting instructions during the trial, if necessary, and in the final charge at the
conclusion of the trial. Under the alleged facts, bifurcation does not promote judicial economy
and the primary concern of potential prejudice or confusion of the jury can be prevented.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, after thorough review and careful consideration, the Court ORDERS that
Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 1) to Exclude Testimony Regarding Accusations of Other
Instances of Misconduct (Document 50), Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 2) to Preclude
Plaintiff’s Alleged Future Damages at Trial (Document 51), Defendant’s Motion in Limine (No.
3) to Preclude Use of Employment Documents and Evidence Related to Timothy Hale (Document
52), Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 4) to Prohibit Use of the Term “Mace” in Place of OC
Spray (Document 53) be GRANTED and that Defendants’ Motion in Limine (No. 5) to Bifurcate
Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages (Document 54) be DENIED.

The Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Criminal Convictions (Document 48), and
Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff’s Prison Disciplinary Record Unrelated to Subject Incident
6

Case 2:20-cv-00100 Document 61 Filed 06/17/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 506

(Document 49) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as more fully set forth
herein.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

June 17, 2021

~~R4~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

7