Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02342/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02342-29/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM TOWNSEND, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.K. SISTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:09-cv-2342 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to 

the condition of a shower at California State Prison, Solano on December 29, 2006. ECF No. 19 

at 6. Plaintiff alleges that he slipped in a shower and suffered physical injuries. Id. On February 

24, 2016, the court ordered plaintiff to file an amended pretrial statement which complies with 

Local Rule 281. One of the requirements of Local Rule 281 is that plaintiff provide the court 

with a list of exhibits he expects to offer into evidence at trial. Although plaintiff has peppered 

the court with filings, he has thus far failed to comply with the court’s order to present the court 

with a coherent and concise list of exhibits.

In a document filed March 17, 2016 (ECF No. 125), plaintiff provided a list of 15 

proposed trial exhibits. In a document filed March 10, 2016 (ECF No 124), plaintiff pointed back 

to exhibits filed in this action on October 28, 2014 (ECF No. 72) and October 23, 2015 (ECF No. 

Case 2:09-cv-02342-CKD Document 129 Filed 06/03/16 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

108), identifying 32 exhibits (236 pages) in the document filed October 28, 2014, and a further 

158 exhibits (1,300 pages) identified in the October 23, 2015 document. The Court has reviewed 

all of plaintiff’s filings and exhibits and concludes that most of the documents plaintiff identifies 

would be inadmissible in plaintiff’s case-in-chief at trial as irrelevant, illegible, repetitive and/or 

hearsay. 

In an effort to aid plaintiff in the efficient and effective presentation of his case at trial, the 

Court informs plaintiff that the only documents that will be admitted at trial will be those 

documents that relate directly to: 1) the conditions of the shower which caused plaintiff to fall; 2) 

whether defendants had knowledge of the conditions of the shower prior to his fall; 3) whether 

defendants had knowledge, prior to plaintiff’s fall, that the conditions which caused plaintiff to 

fall amounted to a substantial risk of serious harm; 4) whether defendants were wanton and 

malicious in causing plaintiff to fall; and/or 5) injuries caused by plaintiff’s fall.

The only exhibits plaintiff has thus far submitted which could conceivably be admissible 

are Exhibits 1 through 4 and 7 through 12, although the Court will withhold ruling on their 

admissibility until plaintiff has fully and completely satisfied his obligation to file a pretrial 

statement that complies with Local Rule 281. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Exhibits 1 through 4 and 7 through 12, previously submitted, are accepted for 

inclusion in the Final Pretrial Order.

2. All other exhibits previously submitted are rejected.

3. Plaintiff may submit any exhibits not previously submitted,

1

and may resubmit any 

exhibits the Court has rejected, within 30 days, that are relevant and material to the 

issues to be tried (set forth above). Exhibits which may be re-submitted for review 

shall include only:

 

1

 Including the 15 potential exhibits identified in the document filed by plaintiff on March 

17, 2016, provided that the exhibits are relevant, material, legible, and not repetitive of other 

exhibits.

Case 2:09-cv-02342-CKD Document 129 Filed 06/03/16 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

A. Documents that concern injuries suffered as a direct result of plaintiff’s 

December 29, 2006 fall.2

B. Documents concerning medical care received for the injuries as a direct result 

of plaintiff’s December 29, 2006 fall. 

C. Legible documents.

4. Plaintiff shall not submit legal guides, legal research, or documents that are repetitive, 

illegible, or are summaries of other exhibits or testimony. 

5. The total number of pages plaintiff may submit shall not exceed 100 pages.

6. If plaintiff includes several documents together in one exhibit, as he did with the 

documents previously identified as exhibits 1-190, they must be organized and must include an 

exhibit title which applies to all of the documents included in the exhibit.

7. Plaintiff’s failure to substantially comply with all of the terms of this order will result 

in dismissal of this action for failure to follow court orders pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: June 3, 2016

1

town2342.exs

 

2

 Documents concerning unrelated injuries or illnesses, complaints about medical treatment, and 

grievances about medical treatment are not relevant or material and should not be submitted for 

review. 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02342-CKD Document 129 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 3