Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01979/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01979-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RAMON CRAVER, ) 2:03-cv-1979-GEB-EFB-P

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

vs. )

)

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Pending are Plaintiff’s motions in limine to which

Defendants filed an opposition. Plaintiff’s motion seeking to

strike witness Deputy Allen is denied since Plaintiff has not

shown that Deputy Allen is not qualified to testify at trial. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendants’ Exhibit

No. L is denied since Plaintiff has not provided the court with

the specific discovery requests allegedly applicable to

Plaintiff’s in limine motion. Further, even assuming arguendo

the issue needs to be reached, in light of Defendants’ response

that “they do not intend to use [Exhibit No. L] as a part of

Case 2:03-cv-01979-GEB-EFB Document 100 Filed 08/08/07 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

2

their case in chief,” Plaintiff has not shown this issue is ripe

for review. 

Further, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a court order

to have Plaintiff’s personal property issued to him immediately

upon arrival at CSP-SAC NEW FOLSOM is denied since Plaintiff has

not shown that he is not going to timely receive his property

following his arrival at CSP-SAC NEW FOLSOM, and Plaintiff’s

request therefore appears to be seeking an advisory ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2007

Case 2:03-cv-01979-GEB-EFB Document 100 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2