Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655-58/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, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO THE PRETRIAL ORDER 

AND AMENDING PRETRIAL ORDER

(ECF No. 271)

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued the pretrial order in this action. (ECF No. 265.) 

On December 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the pretrial order.

Plaintiff objects to the undisputed fact that he is a convicted felon serving a life sentence 

on the grounds that it is prejudicial, and several of Defendants’ undisputed facts on the ground of 

hearsay or because he claims they are erroneous. The purpose of the pretrial order is to frame 

the issues for trial. The pretrial order is not evidence that is seen by the jury. Plaintiff’s 

objections to statements in the pretrial order may be a subject for a motion in limine or an 

objection during trial, but disputed or undisputed facts will not be deleted from the pretrial order 

based on Plaintiff’s objections.

Plaintiff states that Defendants were required to file their disputed evidentiary issues one 

week after receiving Plaintiff’s pretrial statement and therefore all evidentiary issues are deemed 

waived. Plaintiff is incorrect. The purpose of the parties’ pretrial statements is to identify issues 

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 275 Filed 12/28/16 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

that may be present in the case. However, there was no requirement that evidentiary issues be 

raised in the pretrial order in order to preserve them for trial. The parties may also raise

appropriate evidentiary issues in a motion in limine or during trial as they arise. 

Plaintiff objects to the statement in the pretrial order that he filed a request for leave to 

file an amended complaint that was denied. However, the Court does not find the statement to 

be in error. On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for leave to file an amended/supplemental 

complaint. The request was denied on October 5, 2016, finding that Plaintiff had not 

demonstrated good cause to amend the scheduling order. Specifically, the order stated, “Plaintiff 

has not explained why he waited more than two years after the deadline to amend the complaint and 

discovery in this action had closed to move to amend his complaint.” (ECF No. 241 at 2:26-3:2.) 

In his pretrial statement, Plaintiff included a section for “Amendments” and requested 

permission to file a fourth amended complaint. The Court construed his request in the pretrial 

statement as a motion for reconsideration and denied the request. 

Finally, Plaintiff includes three new “undisputed facts” that he requests be included in the 

pretrial order. The pretrial order contained a section for facts which were undisputed by either 

party and a section of each party’s undisputed facts that the opposing party disputed. Since it is 

not clear that Plaintiff’s newly included facts would be undisputed by Defendants, they shall be 

included in Plaintiff’s undisputed facts section of the pretrial order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pretrial order is amended at 8: 27 as 

follows:

48. 0n 7/11/2004, during third watch, on Facility II, Lieutenant M. Marmolejo was 

the highest ranking supervisory official and Sergeant R. Wicks was second in 

command.

49. Between 1515 and 1545 hours, in the Facility II Program Office, Plaintiff 

expressed to Lieutenant Marmolejo and Sergeant Wicks, that Plaintiff was having 

difficulties with other inmates in Housing Unit (HU) 250 and had to move out and 

requested to be returned to the Gym HU.

/ / /

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 275 Filed 12/28/16 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

50. Lieutenant Marmolejo and Sergeant Wicks agreed to move Plaintiff back to the 

Gym HU after the 1645 ASP count of its prisoners.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 275 Filed 12/28/16 Page 3 of 3