Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655-63/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

LOUIS BRANCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. UMPHENOUR, L. SZALAI, and J. 

ALVAREZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:08-cv-01655-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS’ OUT OF 

COURT STATEMENTS WHICH IS 

CONSTRUED AS A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 305)

On January 18, 2017, an order issued addressing the parties’ motions in limine. (ECF 

No. 301.) On January 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Defendants’ out of court 

statements which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the denial of Plaintiff’s 

request to exclude Defendants from proffering testimony consistent with chronos that were 

produced during discovery in this action. 

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court “may relieve a 

party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 

reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a 

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 306 Filed 01/26/17 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

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the 

judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has 

been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or 6) any other 

reason that justifies relief. “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn 

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal 

punctuation and citations omitted). 

Requests for reconsideration are also governed by Local Rule 230(j) which provides that 

a party seeking reconsideration must set forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding 

the motion for reconsideration, including “what new or different facts or circumstances are 

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 

grounds exist for the motion;” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of 

the prior motion.” 

II.

DISCUSSION

As relevant to the current motion, in this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 

Umphenour, Szalai, and Alvarez failed to protect him by failing to intervene when he was being 

attacked by other inmates. At summary judgment, Defendants Szalai and Alvarez included 

chronos which stated that at the time Plaintiff was being attacked they were not on the yard. 

Further, all three defendants proffered declarations addressing where they were at the time that 

Plaintiff was attacked. Specifically, the chrono for Defendant Szalai states that he “was in the 

staff office preparing for 1645 Institutional Count” at approximately 4:30 on July 11, 2004, when 

he heard Plaintiff being paged over the public address system. (General Chrono, ECF No. 305 at 

5.1) The chrono for Defendant Alvarez states that he “had just exited the Staff Bathroom in 

 

1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 306 Filed 01/26/17 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

Housing Unit 250,” and heard Plaintiff being paged over the public address system. (General 

Chrono, ECF No. 305 at 6.) The Court has granted Plaintiff’s request to have these chronos 

excluded during the trial. Defendant Umphenour stated in his declaration that shortly before 

4:30 he was patrolling the “C” side of Housing Unit 250, and when he returned to the podium he 

was informed that Sgt. Wicks was looking for an inmate who was attempting to buy a weapon 

from another inmate. (ECF No. 305 at 13.) However, Plaintiff also contends that the Defendants 

may not testify to the substance of the information contained within the chronos or their 

declarations. 

While Plaintiff brings the current motion to “clarify” his position on the exclusion of the 

statements and presents the same argument that he proffered in the motion in limine briefing, 

Plaintiff has clearly articulated his arguments and the law upon which he relies in support. 

Plaintiff argues that the defendants out of court statements cannot be admitted at the trial of this 

action because they are out of court statements and were made after the motive to fabricate arose. 

However, Plaintiff is confusing the issue of hearsay statements with a witness’ testimony during 

the trial. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 801 and Fed. R. Evid. 602.

As set forth in the order addressing the parties’ motions in limine, the cases upon which 

Plaintiff relies do not hold that a witness cannot offer testimony at trial if it is consistent with 

hearsay that was made after the motive to fabricate arose. The cases upon which Plaintiff relies 

address the situation where a prior out of court statement is being offered to show that the 

witness made a statement consistent with the testimony that he is offering in the instant 

proceeding.2 While there may be other objections that could apply, a witness’ testimony during 

trial that is based on his personal knowledge is not hearsay and cannot be excluded on that 

ground. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude the chronos has been granted. However, as the 

parties were advised in the order addressing the motions in limine, circumstances during the trial 

 

2 As defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is a statement that is not made while testifying in the current 

trial or hearing and is offered by a party to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). However, a 

prior statement that is consistent with the declarant’s testimony is not hearsay when offered to rebut an express or 

implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated the testimony or acted from an improper motive in testifying. 

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). Here, as to the testimony that Plaintiff is seeking to have excluded, no prior statement is 

being offered. The witness is testifying as to personal knowledge.

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 306 Filed 01/26/17 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

can arise that cause excluded evidence to become admissible. If such a circumstance arises the 

parties have been informed that the issue must be raised outside of the presence of the jury for 

the Court to issue a ruling before the evidence is presented to the jury.

Further, to the extent that Plaintiff argues that the statements were not subject to cross 

examination, during the trial of this matter he will have the opportunity to cross examine each 

witness that offers testimony about their personal knowledge of the events at issue in this action. 

This will be Plaintiff’s opportunity to test the veracity of the witness’ testimony.

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any grounds for reconsideration of the motion in limine

ruling regarding the personal testimony of Defendants about their whereabouts at the time of the 

inmate assault. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the out of court statements of Defendants’, 

which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 306 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 4