Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155-17/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

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. DELEON, C. CARILLO, and A. 

GUZMAN,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

IN LIMINE

Plaintiff moves in limine for a pretrial ruling 

“prohibiting the defendants from mentioning or offering into 

evidence any record regarding his . . . criminal convictions on 

the basis that the potential for unfair prejudice outweighs any 

value that the convictions would have as evidence of [his] 

credibility.” (Pl.’s MIL 1:16-20, ECF No. 100.) Plaintiff 

references two felony convictions in his motion, his 1992 

conviction for which he was incarcerated at all times relevant to 

this action,1 and his 2011 conviction involving an altercation 

 

1 Defendants state in their September 26, 2014 Pretrial Statement (“PS”) 

that “Plaintiff is serving a life sentence as a result of his 1992 conviction 

for second degree murder and attempted murder in Orange County.” (Defs.’ PS 

2:8-11, ECF No. 80.)

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 104 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 4
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 had with inmate Suastegui on October 14, 2009.

2 (Pl.’s 

MIL 1:21-24, 2:7-12.) Plaintiff argues: “his first conviction in 

1992 is remote, . . . plus[,] [he] did not . . . testif[y] in 

[either the] 1992 [or] 2011 trial[]. Therefore, . . . the court 

should exercise its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 to grant 

plaintiff’s motion in limine.” (Id. at 1:22-27.) 

Defendants address the admission of Plaintiff’s felony 

convictions in their trial brief, arguing: 

Defendants seek only to introduce the 

fact that Plaintiff has prior felony 

convictions, the length of sentences for 

those convictions, and to argue in closing 

argument that, under Federal Rule of Evidence 

609, the conviction[s] bear[] upon his 

credibility. Defendants are not planning to 

present evidence regarding Plaintiff’s 

commitment offense or the circumstances of 

his crime. . . . Because [felony convictions]

weigh heavily upon a witnesses’ credibility, 

[they] are generally admitted. Federal Rule 

of Evidence 609 stands for “the proposition 

that felons perjure themselves more often 

than other, similarly situated witnesses.” 

Campbell v. Greer, 831 F.2d 700, 707 (7th 

Cir. 1987). Since [Plaintiff] is still 

incarcerated, the ten year limit for 

utilizing a felony conviction for purposes of 

impeachment, provided by Federal Rule of 

Evidence 609(b), does not apply.

The probative value of [Plaintiff’s] 

convictions is not outweighed by their 

prejudicial effect under Federal Rule of 

Evidence 403. Since Defendants do not intend 

to delve into the details of Plaintiff’s 

convictions, and the finder of fact will be 

aware because of the nature of [Plaintiff’s] 

claim[s] that he is incarcerated, there is no 

danger of undue prejudice.

 

2 Defendants further state in their PS that Plaintiff was convicted of the 

following felonies: “On September 30, 2011, a jury found Plaintiff guilty of 

assault with a deadly weapon while serving a life sentence, . . . and [of] 

possession of a weapon, specifically a sharp instrument, while in a penal 

institution . . . .” (Defs.’ PS at 5:1-5.)

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 104 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 4
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

The verdict in this case will be decided 

by the jury after consideration of each 

witness’s credibility. In order to meet his 

burden of proof at trial, [Plaintiff] is 

expected to testify to his version of the 

events that occurred and to the basis for his 

belief that his constitutional rights were 

violated. Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure provides that evidence of a 

witness’s prior conviction of a felony may be 

used to impeach that witness’s testimony.

(Defs.’ Trial Br. 7:2-23, ECF No. 101 (internal citation 

omitted).) 

“Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(A) provides that 

evidence of a conviction for a crime punishable for more than one 

year is admissible, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case to 

attack a witness’s character for truthfulness.” Exmundo v. 

Scribner, No. 1:06cv00205 AWI DLB PC, 2014 WL 429133, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Aug. 27, 2014) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(A)).

“Evidence of a conviction under this rule is [generally] not 

admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since 

the date of the conviction or release from confinement for it, 

whichever is later.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 

609(b)). 

Plaintiff’s 1992 and 2011 felony convictions are

“qualifying offense[s] under Rule 609(a)(1)(A) and [are] 

admi[ssible] for impeachment purposes subject to Rule 403.” Id.

Plaintiff’s 1992 conviction is not excluded by age since 

Plaintiff is still incarcerated for it. Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). 

Further, Plaintiff has not shown that reference to 

these convictions should be excluded under Federal Rule of 

Evidence 403 in light of Defendants’ referenced representations 

about the scope of information they intend to introduce 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 104 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 4
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

concerning the convictions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s in limine 

motion is DENIED.3

Dated: January 29, 2016

 

3 It is unclear whether Plaintiff seeks in his in limine motion to 

preclude the admission of evidence other than his 1992 and 2011 convictions. 

(See, e.g., Pl.’s MIL 3:25-27 (“[T]he court should not admit[] . . . any other 

evidence under Rule 404(b).”); id. at 5:12-16 (“[P]laintiff humbly prays the 

court to . . . consider each document in his File individually and only those 

specific documents that are relevant to the claims and defenses in the lawsuit 

. . . should be admitted.”)). To the extent Plaintiff seeks additional relief 

in this motion, a pretrial ruling thereon cannot issue since the scope of the 

motion is unclear. 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 104 Filed 01/29/16 Page 4 of 4