Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00855/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00855-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERRY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLEMENT OGBUEHI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 54)

Gerry Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed motions in limine. (ECF No. 54). Plaintiff asks for 

certain evidence and arguments to be excluded at trial. Plaintiff also asks to be permitted to wear 

civilian clothing without restraints at trial.

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions as premature. As the Court informed Plaintiff, “[i]f 

this case is still proceeding after dispositive motions have been resolved, or if no dispositive 

motions are filed, the Court will set expert disclosure deadlines, a telephonic trial confirmation 

hearing, pretrial deadlines, and a trial date.” (ECF No. 47, p. 6) (footnote omitted). The deadline 

for the filing of dispositive motions is currently set for March 24, 2023. (Id. at 5). As the

telephonic trial confirmation hearing (the pretrial conference), pretrial deadlines, and the trial 

have not been set, and as these deadlines will not be set in the near future, the Court finds that 

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 58 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff’s motions are premature. In his pretrial statement, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to 

address disputed evidentiary issues.1 Additionally, the Court may set a deadline for filing 

motions in limine, and at that time Plaintiff may renew these motions in limine and/or file 

additional motions in limine.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions in limine are denied, without 

prejudice to Plaintiff renewing the motions at a later stage in the proceedings.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Pretrial statements are required to include “[a] plain, concise summary of any reasonably anticipated 

disputes concerning admissibility of live and deposition testimony, physical and demonstrative evidence and the use 

of special technology at trial, including computer animation, video discs, and other high technology, and a statement 

whether each such dispute should be resolved by motion in limine, briefed in the trial brief, or addressed in some 

other manner.” Local rule 281(b)(5).

2 Nothing in this order prevents Plaintiff from objecting to and/or moving to strike evidence submitted in 

support of, or in opposition to, a dispositive motion.

Case 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Document 58 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 2