Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-03274/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-03274-1/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS N. ERVINE,

Plaintiff, No. C 00-3274 PJH 

v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

JESSICA CLARKE, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this final pretrial

order is hereby entered and shall control the course of the trial unless modified by a

subsequent order. The pretrial statements of the parties are incorporated herein except as

modified by the court's ruling on the pretrial motions as stated at the final pretrial

conference and summarized as follows.

I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

Plaintiff:

1) Motion to exclude evidence concerning plaintiff’s underlying conviction and

crime of conviction is DENIED. To the extent, however, that defendants seek

to introduce evidence relating to the specific details and factors surrounding

the underlying crime and conviction, the motion is GRANTED. Moreover, no

party may refer to either plaintiff’s direct appeal or habeas petition pending in

state court. 

2) Motion to exclude evidence concerning plaintiff’s criminal history prior to the 

conviction for which he is currently incarcerated, including any alleged drug

use, is GRANTED. 

3) Motion to exclude evidence concerning the specifics and/or particulars of

plaintiff’s military service during the Vietnam War is GRANTED.

4) Motion to exclude evidence concerning plaintiff’s familial relationships is

GRANTED. 

Case 4:00-cv-03274-PJH Document 186 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 6
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

5) Motion to exclude evidence concerning plaintiff’s prior medical history,

including any psychological, physical or mental conditions, as well as any

injuries sustained prior to 1999, or evidence of how he handled those

conditions is GRANTED, except that defendant may introduce such evidence

if such condition or conduct is causally related to the physical condition at

issue here.

6) Motion to exclude evidence concerning plaintiff’s prior violation of San

Quentin rules and regulations, including evidence related to plaintiff’s alleged

possession of an illegal substance, is GRANTED.

7) Motion to exclude evidence concerning plaintiff’s custody in Sacramento

County and alleged incidents that occurred during said custody and evidence

pertaining to the resultant lawsuit against Sacramento County officials is

GRANTED.

8) Motion to deem certain requests for admissions admitted and conclusively

established is DENIED.

9) Motion to exclude information and documents requested but not produced is

DENIED. 

10) Petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for the attendance at trial

of death-row inmate witnesses Christopher Alan Spencer and DeWayne

Michael Carey is DENIED as the court finds their personal appearance

unnecessary and their testimony cumulative and largely inadmissible hearsay. 

In view of this finding, plaintiff’s request that these witnesses be permitted to

attend trial in civilian attire is similarly DENIED. However, plaintiff may

introduce relevant and admissible portions of the deposition testimony of one

of the two inmates.

Defendants:

1) Motion to exclude evidence from or about and argument related to Plata et al.

v. Schwarzenegger, et al., Case No. 01-1351 TEH, is GRANTED.

Case 4:00-cv-03274-PJH Document 186 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

2) Motion to exclude testimony of plaintiff’s niece and brother regarding plaintiff’s

health condition, where based on hearsay statements, is GRANTED. 

Notwithstanding, the court will permit testimony based on the witnesses’

personal observations, and as to communications that bear on defendants’

knowledge of plaintiff’s health condition.

3) Motion to exclude testimony of inmate witnesses Spencer and Carey

regarding plaintiff’s health condition, where based on hearsay statements, is

likewise GRANTED. The court will permit testimony based on personal

knowledge within the limitations specified above in ¶ 10.

4) Motion to exclude argument or evidence that damages may be awarded

based on the value of a constitutional right is GRANTED.

5) Motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order granting a writ of habeas

corpus ad testificandum in connection with plaintiff’s attendance at trial is

GRANTED. As this matter was taken under submission, the court orders as

follows. Given that plaintiff’s original request for a writ was handled informally

and telephonically in order to expedite the process, defense counsel’s failure

to obtain client approval regarding the attendance of plaintiff and other

inmates will not be held against the clients who are all employees of the

California Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections through

Captain Lawson has made a compelling showing that plaintiff, a death-row

inmate convicted of killing a police officer to avoid arrest and of attempting to

kill three other police officers who were attempting his arrest, poses a

significant security risk as well as a risk of flight. Captain Lawson further

advised the court with respect to the court’s prior decision that plaintiff should

not be shackled from the waist up during trial, that whenever plaintiff is not in

his cell, his wrists and waist are shackled. As a result Captain Lawson is

concerned about plaintiff’s proximity to counsel, court staff, jurors and the

public and to various implements on counsel table that could be used as a

weapon during the trial. Captain Lawson also expressed concern about the 

Case 4:00-cv-03274-PJH Document 186 Filed 03/10/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

opportunity for plotting escape that would be available to plaintiff should he be

returned to the court on consecutive days. Lastly, Captain Lawson provided a

description of the effort and manpower that would have to be devoted to

bringing plaintiff to the courtroom on one or more days, which the department

calculates would cost the state $3,500 a day. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s

counsel’s belief based on his contacts with plaintiff over the past year and on

plaintiff’s advanced age of 58, that plaintiff does not pose a risk of danger or

flight, the court finds that he does. Although a plaintiff in a civil suit who is

confined in state prison at the time of trial, unlike a criminal defendant, has no

absolute right to be personally present at a particular stage of his civil case,

the court does find that given the nature of his claims, his testimony is

necessary. See Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157 (9th Cir. 1986);

Hernandez v. Whiting, 881 F.2d 768, 770 (9th cir. 1989). Further, given the

conflicting testimony that is anticipated, the court finds that the jury should be

permitted to see the plaintiff. However, when balancing the probative value of

his testimony and need for his personal appearance against the expense and

security risk associated with transporting a death-row inmate to court and

monitoring his appearance while in the courtroom open to the public, the

scales tip in favor of the state. Accordingly, plaintiff may appear to give

testimony via video conferencing assuming the court’s equipment is

compatible with that of the Department of Corrections. A test run is currently

scheduled for Monday March 13, 2006. If the equipment is compatible,

plaintiff shall be made available to testify first thing Tuesday morning, March

21, 2006, the second day of trial. Because of the expenses that will be saved

by electronic appearance and because the state requested this option, the

cost of the call shall be borne by the state. Should the equipment prove to be

incompatible, counsel for the parties shall immediately schedule and complete

a trial deposition which must be videotaped for use at the trial. Again, the

state shall bear the cost and shall make plaintiff available next week for the

Case 4:00-cv-03274-PJH Document 186 Filed 03/10/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

deposition. Counsel should call the courtroom deputy Monday afternoon to

find out the test results. Accordingly, plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus ad testificandum is DENIED and the writ previously issued is

WITHDRAWN.

6. Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Stockman, is

GRANTED, however, Mr. Stockman may testify as a percipient witness to his

observations and recollections in connection with the site inspection of

plaintiff’s cell or the parties may enter a stipulation as to his testimony and

forego calling him as a witness. 

III. WITNESSES

No additional witnesses may be added to the witness lists of either party. The

parties shall follow this court’s Trial Rules with respect to notifying each other of which

witnesses will be called each day.

IV. EXHIBITS AND DISCOVERY EXCERPTS

Any party using a deposition in lieu of live testimony must be prepared to reenact

rather than simply read the deposition–in other words, two attorneys will be required.

V. VOIR DIRE

The court will conduct the voir dire incorporating the parties’ joint questions. Each

side will e given 20 minutes for followup questions. Seven jurors will be seated.

VI. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The parties must jointly submit on the first day of trial a revised joint set of jury

instructions. The parties shall meet and confer in order to agree upon the instructions

utilizing the Ninth Circuit Manual where possible. The court expects that customized

instructions will be submitted where the Manual provides no instruction or inadequate

instructions. Argumentative instructions will not be given.

VII. VERDICT FORMS

The submitted verdict forms are unacceptable. The parties shall meet and confer

and prepare a revised joint form of verdict and to submit it on the first day of trial. 

Case 4:00-cv-03274-PJH Document 186 Filed 03/10/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

VIII. TRIAL SCHEDULE AND TIME LIMITS

Trial will take place over 4 days on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, from

8:30 a.m to 1:30 p.m. Each side will be permitted 5 hours trial time excluding jury selection

and closing argument. Should we be able to commence the trial on Monday afternoon,

additional time will be available.

IX. ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

The parties shall submit briefing to the court regarding the viability of plaintiff’s

section 1985 conspiracy claim, and specifically, whether such a claim may extend beyond

the race-based discrimination context and how such claim should be presented in the

verdict form and jury instructions. Plaintiff shall file his brief no later than 4:00 p.m. on

March 15, 2006, and defendants shall provide the court with their response no later than

4:00 p.m. on March 17, 2006. Courtesy copies must be provided to chambers by fax no

later than 4:00 p.m. 

X. MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

 The parties shall attend a mandatory settlement conference to be conducted by

Magistrate Judge Laporte on Thursday March 16, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The defendants shall

make sure that plaintiff is available by telephone during the conference. A brief settlement

conference statement shall be submitted (but not filed) to Judge Laporte’s chambers by

Tuesday March 14, 2006, 4:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2006 ________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:00-cv-03274-PJH Document 186 Filed 03/10/06 Page 6 of 6