Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00411/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00411-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to

portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739

(7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jacquelyn Harrelson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Clarence Dupnik, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-411-TUC-FRZ (BPV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) issued by United

States Magistrate Judge Velasco that addresses numerous motions in limine.1

 As the limited

objections do not undermine the vast majority of the analysis and proper conclusions reached

by the R & R, the parties’ objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is

fully adopted except as specifically noted below in this Order.

Bifurcation

The R & R recommends denying Plaintiff’s motions in limine seeking to exclude M.J.H.’s

prior bad acts, juvenile record, and the nature and circumstances of his sentenced crimes as

this evidence is clearly relevant to the damages in this case. See R & R at pp. 24-31.

Case 4:11-cv-00411-FRZ-BPV Document 186 Filed 06/04/14 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

The Court notes that County Defendants submit “clarifications and objections” to the R &

R. As to the clarifications appearing at p. 1, line 18 to p. 2, line 4 in Doc. 179, the County

Defendants note a typo in the R & R and also note that they addressed an argument in the motion

in limine briefing contrary to what the R & R stated. While the Court does not believe that

clarification is necessary as to those issues as it has no impact on the trial or the Court’s substantive

rulings herein, the Court agrees with the County Defendants’ stated clarifications at p. 1, line 18 to

p. 2, line 4 in Doc. 179.

- 2 -

However, the R & R also recommends bifurcating the trial between liability and damages as

it was apparently unclear that the evidence at issue was pertinent to any liability issues based

on the state of the record before Judge Velasco. See R & R at pp. 29-31. The

recommendation as to bifurcation is rejected as proceeding in this manner would be

impractical and inefficient. As Defendants correctly argue, M.J.H.’s criminal history and

various juvenile problems may be linked to his mental health problems which Defendants

were attempting to address while he was incarcerated. Furthermore, some of those issues,

such as his history of drug and alcohol use, may also be connected to the cause of death.

Thus, damages and liability could not be neatly separated into two separate trials as the issues

are overlapping, and witnesses and documentation could not be efficiently presented to the

jury without allowing reference to M.J.H.’s prior bad acts, juvenile record, and the nature and

circumstances of his sentenced crimes.2

Advisory Letter

On pages 22 to 24 of the R & R, Judge Velasco discusses the Conmed Defendants’ motion

to exclude the Advisory Letter issued by the Arizona Medical Board related to their

investigation of Dr. Bishop. However, the motion was denied as moot as Plaintiff stipulated

that they did not foresee using the letter in the case in chief. To avoid any confusion at trial,

the Court will grant the motion to exclude the Advisory Letter with leave for Plaintiff to

move to introduce the letter at trial if they believe it becomes necessary for some reason; any

discussion as to introducing the letter shall take place outside the presence of the jury.

Miscellaneous Matters

In the County’s objections, they state in part: “[T]he County Defendants' Motion in

Case 4:11-cv-00411-FRZ-BPV Document 186 Filed 06/04/14 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 -

Limine (Doc. #144) also sought an Order precluding Plaintiff from using Dr. Don's testimony

to establish that the assault and protective-custody status were a proximate cause of MJH's

death. The County Defendants are unclear as to whether the Report adopts that request. Thus,

they respectfully request that the Court clarify this point by adding language that Plaintiff

cannot use Dr. Don to establish that the assault and protective-custody status were a

proximate cause of MJH's death.” See Doc. 179 at p. 2, lines 12-25. As to these issues, the

R & R states in part: “[T]he Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny the motion

as to Dr. Don in part, to allow testimony from Dr. Don concerning her opinion that the

physical and emotional consequences of the assault and head injury, and protective custody

status, as a causal factors in the deterioration of M.J.H.’s psychiatric condition but grant the

motion as to any testimony regarding standard of care of the County Defendants.” See R &

R (Doc. 175 at p. 9, lines 3-11). The R & R does not need clarification. To the extent the

County objects to the R & R, the objection is rejected.

On a related note, Plaintiff's objections state in part: "Plaintiff also objects to the extent

that the recommendation might be read that a ‘custodial expert’ is required for the claims

made in this case. The concept that corrections officers must follow ‘keep separate’

directives in order to protect a juvenile inmate from attack is not beyond the experience or

competence of the jury to understand." See Doc. 178 at p. 2, lines 11-15. The Court finds

that the R & R does not make any such suggestion and no objection is warranted.

Regardless, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s position as to this issue.

Lastly, Plaintiff's objections state in part: "Plaintiff objects to the recommendation

regarding medical experts to the extent that A.R.S. § 12-2604 is applied to claims made

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's medical experts are well-qualified to provide the

testimony required to establish claims against the individual Conmed defendants under

federal law. See Doc. 175, p. 17 (on qualifications of Dr. Don and Dr. Wax)." See Doc. 178

at p. 2, lines 20-25. Again, the Court finds that the R & R does not make any such

suggestion and no objection is warranted. Regardless, the Court agrees with Plaintiff's

position as to this issue.

Case 4:11-cv-00411-FRZ-BPV Document 186 Filed 06/04/14 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 -

To the extent the Court has not specifically addressed any other objections or requests for

“clarifications”, the Court rejects the objections and finds that any request for “clarification”

is unwarranted.

Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 175) is fully adopted except as specifically noted

in the text of this Order.

(2) The parties’ motions in limine (Docs. 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153,

154, 155) are granted in part and denied in part as discussed in the text of the R & R and this

Order.

DATED this 3rd day of June, 2014.

Case 4:11-cv-00411-FRZ-BPV Document 186 Filed 06/04/14 Page 4 of 4