Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05003/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05003-2/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

MALCOLM ANDRE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT A. DANIELSON,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5003 REC SMS P 

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR

SUBMISSIONS OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Malcolm Andre Young (“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. 

A. BACKGROUND

On February 16, 2005, this Court issued a Second Scheduling Order setting a Telephonic

Trial Confirmation Hearing for August 16, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned and trial

for September 27, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. before District Court Judge Coyle. Plaintiff filed a timely

pretrial statement on April 20, 2005. Defendant’s deadline for filing a pretrial statement was

June 3, 2005. However, on May 26, 2005, Defendants moved for an extension of time to submit

Case 1:02-cv-05003-REC -SMS Document 65 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1Defendants indicate in their pretrial statement that this action is barred by the statute of limitations and that

there are no triable issues of law. The dispositive motion deadline in this case, however, expired on February 7,

2005, and no dispositive motion or request for extension of time was filed by Defendants. Thus, the case was set for

trial scheduled to occur on September 27, 2005. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling

order “shall control the subsequent course of the action unless modified by a subsequent order” and shall not be

modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge or, when authorized by local rule,

by a magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), (e). To the extent that Defendants seek to have the action dismissed on

any of the grounds specified above, leave of court must be sought under Rule 16. In addition, any such Motion must

be accompanied by the proposed dispositive motion. Defendants are forewarned that raising dispositive issues at trial

is expressly forbidden.

2

the pretrial statement. Defendant’s request was granted on June 22, 2005, and on July 7, 2005,

the pretrial statement was filed.1

B. MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Any party may file a Motion in Limine. The purpose of a Motion in Limine is to

establish in advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. Although the

Federal Rules do not explicitly provide for the filing of Motions in Limine, the Court has the

inherent power to hear and decide such motions as a function of its duty to expeditiously manage

trials by eliminating evidence that is clearly inadmissible for any purpose. Luce v. United States,

469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F. 3d 436, 440

(7th Cir. 1997). The Court will grant a Motion in Limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in

question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any

valid purpose. Id.; Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400

(N.D. Ill. 1993).

Motions in Limine filed by both parties must be served on the opposing party and filed

with the Court, on or before AUGUST 10, 2005. Any Motion in Limine must clearly identify

the nature of the evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side from offering at

trial.

Should the Court deem it necessary, a hearing date for Motions in Limine will be set

during the Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing. Otherwise, the trial Court will hear and

decide such motions on the morning of trial.

Whether or not a party files a Motion in Limine, that party may still object to the

introduction of evidence during the trial.

Case 1:02-cv-05003-REC -SMS Document 65 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. ALL motions in limine SHALL be filed no later than AUGUST 10, 2005.

As the Telephonic Trial Confirmation is scheduled to occur on August 16, 2005, at 10:00

a.m. before the undersigned, the Court cannot entertain extensions of time for the submission of

Motions in Limine. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05003-REC -SMS Document 65 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 3