Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02299/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02299-40/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REX CHAPPELL, )

) 2:02-cv-02299-GEB-GGH-P

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING

v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

)

D. MCCARGAR et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff Rex Chappell moves in limine to exclude from trial 

Plaintiff's case filings other than the civil rights case that

Plaintiff previously filed against Defendant McCargar and others --

Chappell v. Rios -- which was dismissed by the federal court, appealed

by Plaintiff, and in which Plaintiff was allegedly prevented from

filing his opening brief on appeal, resulting in dismissal of the

appeal. Plaintiff argues this proposed evidence should be excluded

under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. This motion is granted. 

Plaintiff also moves in limine to exclude from trial any 

document which references Plaintiff’s failure to pay filing fees to

the Ninth Circuit. This motion is also granted since the Ninth

Circuit rejected Defendants filing fee argument as follows: 

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 151 Filed 04/02/10 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

2

The defendants assert that plaintiff's failure to

pay the filing fee was the cause of the dismissal

of his case rather than any conduct of defendants.

However, plaintiff can't be faulted for failing to

pay the filing fee. He was deprived of the

documents required to pursue his appeal, so there

would have been no point in paying the fee. The

confiscation of legal materials was therefore a

‘but for’ cause of the dismissal.

Chappell v. McCargar,152 Fed.Appx. 571, 2005 WL 2436472 at *2 (9th

Cir. October 4, 2005).

This ruling also excludes references to evidence, testimony

or argument relating to moneys that were in the closed bank account

in Plaintiff’s name, moneys available to Plaintiff to pay filing

fees, and Plaintiff’s purchase of a car for his daughter. 

Plaintiff also moves in limine to exclude Defendants’ 

expert witness. This motion is denied as moot since Defendants

respond that they will not call an expert witness.

Lastly, Plaintiff moves in limine for an order 

excluding evidence of his felony convictions “dating back a

significant period of time.” Plaintiff argues this evidence should

be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Defendants counter

as follows: 

[Plaintiff’s] motion is apparently premised upon

the belief that the chronological history

designated by Defendants as a trial exhibit

pertains to such convictions. It does not. The

chronological history pertains to Chappell’s

movement within CDCR. It will become relevant at

trial if Chappell testifies that he was housed

where he was not housed, or that he was not housed

where he was housed, at a particular time. He may

do so if he thinks such testimony is necessary to

explain certain events, or his failure to take

certain actions. If he does not testify in a manner

that contradicts his CDCR movement history, the

chronological history will not be relevant for

impeachment, and will not be offered into evidence.

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 151 Filed 04/02/10 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

Plaintiff rejoins “[t]he only place that the plaintiff was

housed that is relevant to this lawsuit is California Prison,

Sacramento. That is where the plaintiff was housed when the events at

issue occurred and is the only facility relevant to this action.” 

Plaintiff’s in limine motion concerning the “chronological

history designated by Defendants as a trial exhibit” is granted, since

Defendants have not shown this evidence is admissible in light of Rule

403 considerations and the fact that Plaintiff was only housed at

California Prison, Sacramento, when the issues being tried allegedly 

occurred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 151 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 3