Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01896-43/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMISI J. CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O HAYWARD and

C/O OAKS,

Defendants.

1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA-PC

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(ECF Nos. 207, 210.)

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Jamisi J. Calloway (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C § 1983, against defendants Correctional Officer Hayward and 

Correctional Officer Oaks (collectively, “Defendants”), for use of excessive force in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows. On May 7, 2008, at the California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility and State Prison (“SATF”), Plaintiff was escorted by wheelchair to the 

Emergency Room, which was ten to twenty blocks away from Plaintiff’s housing unit. At the 

E.R., Plaintiff was assaulted by Defendants. As Plaintiff stood up from his wheelchair to be 

weighed, C/O Hayward grabbed Plaintiff’s right bicep and began deliberately hurting him. 

Plaintiff released himself from C/O Hayward’s tight grip. C/O Hayward jumped away in selfCase 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 13
2

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

defense and began striking Plaintiff in the head and face. C/O Oaks struck Plaintiff on his back 

and head. Plaintiff went in and out of consciousness and could not defend himself. Plaintiff’s 

handcuffs were taken off of one hand, and his other hand was stomped. Both arms were 

twisted behind his back, and both shoulders were dislocated. 

Defendants deny that they used excessive force against Plaintiff.

This case is scheduled for jury trial to commence on January 31, 2017. Currently 

before the Court are Defendants’ motions in limine filed on January 10, 2017. (ECF Nos. 207, 

210.) On January 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motions. (ECF No. 217.)

The Court found the matters suitable for decision on the papers and took them under 

submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (See ECF No. 222.) For the following reasons, the 

Court (1) GRANTS Defendants’ motions in limine numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 

and 14; (2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion in limine number 

16; (3) GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion in limine number 12 and RESERVES the 

ruling in part; (4) DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion in limine number 18; and (5) 

DEFERS RULING on motions in limine numbers 15 and 17.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motions in Limine

A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence 

before it is actually introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984). 

“[A] motion in limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious 

and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family 

Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve 

evidentiary disputes before trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in 

front of the jury, thereby relieving the trial judge from the formidable task of neutralizing the 

taint of prejudicial evidence. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003).

Motions in limine that exclude broad categories of evidence are disfavored and such 

issues are better dealt with during trial as the admissibility of evidence arises. See, e.g., Brown 

v. Kavanaugh, No. 1:08-cv-01764-LJO, 2013 WL 1124301, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013) 

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 2 of 13
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

(citing Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975)); see also 

In re Homestore.com, Inc., No. CV 01–11115 RSWL CWX, 2011 WL 291176, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 

Jan. 25, 2011) (holding that motions in limine should “rarely seek to exclude broad categories 

of evidence, as the court is almost always better situated to rule on evidentiary issues in their 

factual context during trial”). Some evidentiary issues are not accurately and efficiently 

evaluated by the trial judge in a motion in limine, and it is necessary to defer ruling until during 

trial when the trial judge can better estimate the impact of the evidence on the jury. Jonasson,

115 F.3d at 440.

B. Federal Rules of Evidence

“Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable 

than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the 

action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. “The 

court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a 

danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the 

jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 

403.

“Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character 

in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with their 

character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). “This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, 

such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of 

mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). 

Evidence of offers to compromise and conduct or statements made during settlement 

negotiations about the claim are inadmissible to prove liability or amount of claim, or to 

impeach a prior inconsistent statement. Fed. R. Evid. 408(a).

“Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to 

prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit 

this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice or proving 

agency, ownership, or control.” Fed. R. Evid. 411.

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 3 of 13
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

“Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible 

to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's 

character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired 

into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness;

or (2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.” 

Fed. R. Evid. 608(a). “If a witness's character for truthfulness is attacked by evidence of a 

criminal conviction for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or 

by imprisonment for more than one year, evidence of the criminal conviction must be admitted, 

subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a 

defendant.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(A).

“If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited 

to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness's perception; (b) helpful to clearly 

understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on 

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Fed. R. 

Evid. 701. “A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, 

or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, 

technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence 

or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the 

testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably 

applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702.

“Hearsay” means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at 

the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter 

asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). “Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the 

following provides otherwise: • a federal statute; • these rules; or • other rules prescribed by the 

Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 802.

///

///

///

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 4 of 13
5

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

III. ANALYSIS OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1. First Motion in Limine

Defendants’ first motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from referring to 

dismissed Defendants or claims and unrelated claims and individuals. Plaintiff opposes the 

motion, arguing that the evidence is relevant to his claims and should be allowed under Rule 

404(b) for proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence 

of mistake, or lack of accident. Plaintiff also argues that the evidence should be allowed under 

Rules 608 and 609, for impeachment during cross examination. 

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. This case proceeds only on 

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against defendants Hayward and Oaks. Testimony or evidence 

about dismissed Defendants or claims and unrelated claims and individuals is irrelevant and is 

excluded.

2. Second Motion in Limine

Defendants’ second motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from offering hearsay 

medical opinions. Plaintiff opposes the motion because he was denied expert witnesses in this 

case to offer medical opinions, and it would be unjust to preclude him from offering hearsay 

medical opinions under Rule 404(b).

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 701. Plaintiff may not introduce 

evidence of statements made by medical providers not at trial unless the statements fall within a 

specific exception to the hearsay rule. Plaintiff is not qualified to render an expert opinion on 

his medical issues. Plaintiff may not testify as to any medical matter which requires scientific, 

technical, or other specialized knowledge, which generally includes any ultimate diagnosis, a 

cause and effect relationship, internal injuries, and interpretation of x-ray films or other medical 

records. However, as a non-expert witness, Plaintiff may testify as to what he saw or felt 

relating to his medical needs or condition.

3. Third Motion in Limine

Defendants’ third motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from making any 

reference to Defendants’ involvement in other lawsuits or incidents. Plaintiff opposes the 

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 5 of 13
6

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

motion, arguing that he has a right to refer to Defendants’ personnel files and all complaints 

against them from any and all sources relating to acts of aggressive behavior, violence, 

excessive force, attempted violence, racial and gender bias, sexual orientation bias, coercive 

conduct, and fabrication of charges and evidence. 

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 403, 404(b). Defendants’ involvement 

in other lawsuits or incidents is not admissible to prove Defendants’ character in order to show 

that on a particular occasion they acted in accordance with their character. Moreover, the Court 

finds that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair 

prejudice to Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff may not refer to Defendants’ involvement in 

other lawsuits or alleged incidents of assault or excessive force.

4. Fourth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ fourth motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from offering his 

interpretation or opinion of various CDCR and Corcoran regulations and policies. Defendants 

anticipate that Plaintiff will attempt to offer opinion testimony about his interpretation of 

Defendants’ and other staff members’ compliance with CDCR regulations and procedures. 

Plaintiff opposes the motion, asserting that he is proceeding pro se and was denied expert 

witnesses. Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to offer his interpretation or opinion of 

various CDCR Regulations and policies.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 701. Plaintiff is not qualified to give 

his opinions about the CDCR’s regulations and policies, their intent, whether Defendants 

followed them, or what Defendants should have done instead.

5. Fifth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ fifth motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from making references to 

alleged racial discrimination that does not directly pertain to this action. Plaintiff opposes the 

motion, arguing that he has a right to bring evidence of alleged racial discrimination by 

Defendants not pertaining to this action, because it is relevant to the moral turpitude of 

Defendants in acting with excessive force.

///

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 6 of 13
7

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

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, 404(b). The probative 

value of the evidence Plaintiff seeks to bring is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair 

prejudice to Defendants. Moreover, this case only proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims of excessive 

force, so evidence of racial discrimination is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s equal 

protection claim was dismissed from this case. Therefore, Plaintiff is precluded from bringing 

evidence at trial to show racial discrimination by Defendants.

6. Sixth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ sixth motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence or testimony of offers to 

compromise. Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from offering or eliciting testimony or 

mentioning in front of the jury any offers to compromise or statements made during settlement 

negotiations. Defendants argue that this evidence is inadmissible under Rule 408, irrelevant to 

any issue in the case, and prejudicial to Defendants because a party may offer to settle a case 

for reasons completely unrelated to the merits of the case. Plaintiff opposes the motion, 

arguing that he should be allowed to discuss the dollar amounts offered by the parties to settle 

the case, to show that Defendants tried to minimize their responsibility for the excessive force 

conduct.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Although Plaintiff questions Defendants’ motives 

in participating in settlement negotiations, Defendants are entitled to an order precluding any 

evidence or mention of settlement-related issues or offers to compromise.

7. Seventh Motion in Limine

Defendants’ seventh motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence that the state may pay 

the judgment or reimburse Defendants if judgment is rendered against them. Defendants argue 

that such evidence is inadmissible under Rule 411, is irrelevant to the issues in this case, and is 

prejudicial to Defendants because a jury is more inclined to deliver a verdict against a 

defendant if it believes that he is indemnified, as opposed to the defendant alone being required 

to satisfy the judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion because the jury should be able to find 

out that CDCR tends not to hold their employees accountable for findings of guilt for using 

excessive force.

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 7 of 13
8

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

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid 411. The court concurs with 

Defendants that such evidence is inadmissible, irrelevant, and prejudicial to Defendants.

8. Eighth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ eighth motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from making reference 

to allegedly antagonistic statements attributed to defendant Hayward during the escort from the 

housing unit to the hospital. Defendants argue that such evidence should be excluded under 

Rule 403 as more prejudicial than probative, and that Plaintiff has not claimed that the alleged 

use of excessive force was motivated by racial bias. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that 

the statements are relevant to the discriminatory conduct which led to excessive force being 

used against Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that such conduct is in violation of CDCR policy and 

procedure which prohibits inmates and employees from disrespecting others or inciting 

violence.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence of antagonistic 

statements made by either of the Defendants is precluded at trial because the probative value of 

such evidence is substantially outweighed by the possibility of unfair prejudice to Defendants.

9. Ninth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ ninth motion in limine seeks to exclude references to alleged sexual assault 

or other alleged instances of excessive force by peace officers against Plaintiff. Defendants 

argue that such evidence is irrelevant to the excessive force claim at issue in this case, and such 

evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Defendants under Rules 401 and 403. Plaintiff 

opposes the motion because past acts by CDCR officers are relevant to the reason that Plaintiff 

was singled out for excessive force.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. Evidence of sexual 

assault or excessive force incidents by Defendants or other officers against Plaintiff, other than 

the incident at issue, are not relevant facts of consequence to determining whether Defendants 

acted against Plaintiff on May 7, 2008. Further, the probative value of such evidence is 

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendants.

///

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 8 of 13
9

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

10. Tenth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ tenth motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from making allegations 

about officers falsifying documents, pursuant to Rules 402, 403, and 404. Plaintiff opposes the 

motion, arguing that he should be able to introduce evidence that Defendants and other officers 

cover up evidence to justify their use of force and hide the truth of what really happened on 

May 7, 2008 after the excessive force incident.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, 404. Evidence of 

falsification of documents after the excessive force incident on May 7, 2008, is not relevant to 

whether Defendants used excessive force, and shall not be allowed. In the event that such 

evidence is found to have relevance to Plaintiff’s claims, the evidence shall be precluded on 

issues of possible indication of guilt or liability by Defendants. 

11. Eleventh Motion in Limine

Defendants’ eleventh motion in limine seeks to limit Plaintiff’s reliance on Dr. Wang’s 

written testimony responses, because Dr. Wang was dismissed from this case in 2013 and 

therefore his written discovery responses constitute inadmissible hearsay. Defendants argue 

that such evidence is inadmissible and may not be used except to impeach Dr. Wang, if he 

testifies. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that evidence of Dr. Wang’s failure to house 

him and treat his serious medical needs is relevant to the excessive force incident of May 7, 

2008, because it shows the frustration of officers not being trained to deal with high risk 

medical patients.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 608. Dr. Wang’s written 

testimony concerning his failure to house Plaintiff or failure to provide adequate medical care is 

inadmissible hearsay and is not relevant to whether defendants Hayward and Oaks used 

excessive force against Plaintiff on May 7, 2008. However, under Rule 608, such evidence 

may be used to impeach Dr. Wang if he testifies. 

12. Twelfth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ twelfth motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from offering opinion 

testimony concerning his medical records or medical condition, pursuant to Rules 701 and 702 

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 9 of 13
10

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

of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that he should be 

permitted to offer such evidence, because he has personal knowledge of the facts of his medical 

records and conditions, and he will be prejudiced because the Court denied him an expert 

witness.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part, with the ruling RESERVED in part. Fed. R. 

Evid. 701. As for Plaintiff’s interpretation of x-ray films or other medical records, Plaintiff 

does not have the scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge to give his opinions. 

Therefore, testimony by Plaintiff interpreting his medical records shall be precluded. As for 

Plaintiff’s testimony about or offering of evidence concerning his medical condition, the Court 

shall reserve a ruling until questioning or testimony at trial. As a non-expert witness, Plaintiff 

may testify as to what he saw or felt relating to his medical needs or condition.

13. Thirteenth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ thirteenth motion in limine seeks to preclude Plaintiff from offering 

testimony or evidence about his alleged history of chest pains or the adequacy of care provided 

at CDCR health care facilities, because such evidence is irrelevant to whether Defendants used 

excessive force against him on May 7, 2008. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that 

evidence of his distress from health issues before Defendants used excessive force is relevant to 

show Defendants’ motive for disregarding Plaintiff’s health prior to the use of excessive force 

on May 7, 2008.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. This case now proceeds 

only on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants used excessive force against him. Whether Plaintiff 

has a history of chest pains or whether CDCR facilities provided adequate medical care to 

Plaintiff or other inmates is irrelevant to whether excessive force was used. Any motive that 

Defendants had for disregarding Plaintiff’s health before they used excessive force against him 

is not relevant to his claim for excessive force.

14. Fourteenth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ fourteenth motion in limine seeks to preclude any and all references to 

allegations of excessive force or injuries and staging of inmate fights not directly relevant to 

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 10 of 13
11

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

this action, pursuant to Rules 401, 403, and 404(b). Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that 

it shows a pattern of behavior at CDCR’s Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff argues that these bad 

acts show the criminal thinking of Corcoran officers and Defendants’ similar conduct. Plaintiff 

also argues that such evidence shows Defendants’ motive and opportunity in staging their 

attack against Plaintiff on May 7, 2008, after isolating him away from his housing unit and 

witnesses.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 410, 402, 403, 404. Evidence of 

excessive force, injuries, or staging of inmate fights by Defendants that are unrelated to 

Defendants’ use of excessive force on May 7, 2008, are excluded as unfairly prejudicial to 

Defendants. In addition, such evidence is inadmissible to prove Defendants’ character in order 

to show that on May 7, 2008, they acted in accordance with their character. However, such

evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, 

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

15. Fifteenth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ fifteenth motion in limine seeks to exclude Plaintiff’s trial exhibits on the 

exhibit list provided in Plaintiff’s pretrial statement. Defendants identify five categories or 

entries on the exhibit list: (1) California State Prison-Corcoran Acute Care Hospital-Radiology 

Report for Jamisi J. Calloway, (2) Physician’s Orders and Medication Signed by Dr. Wang, (3) 

Mr. Calloway’s medical records, (4) Mr. Calloway’s mental health records, and (5) Mr. 

Calloway’s RVR Appeal Forms and Records. Defendants object to the use of unauthenticated 

documents; documents identified by Defendants as potential trial exhibits, trial exhibits, or joint 

exhibits; irrelevant hearsay records; Plaintiff’s health records; and all other documents subject 

to applicable objections. Plaintiff opposes the motion, asserting that he is proceeding pro se 

and the only trial exhibits he has are records provided to him by the State.

The Court shall defer its ruling on this motion in limine until trial, after the parties have 

submitted their trial exhibits.

///

///

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 11 of 13
12

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

16. Sixteenth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ sixteenth motion in limine seeks leave under Rule 403 to introduce 

evidence of Plaintiff’s prior convictions and length of sentence, for impeachment purposes, 

including that Plaintiff is serving a life sentence for his 2002 felony conviction in Contra Costa 

County for attempted voluntary manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and attempted carjacking. 

Defendants assert that they do not seek to introduce evidence or facts of Plaintiff’s specific 

crimes, but rather to elicit testimony about the dates of his convictions and length of 

incarceration. Plaintiff opposes the motion, objecting that his prior convictions and the length 

of his sentence have nothing to do with this civil action, and he is not a defendant on trial. 

Plaintiff requests that if the Court grants this motion in limine, the Court allow Plaintiff to offer 

evidence of his actual innocence. 

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Fed. R. Evid. 

403, 609. Defendants are granted leave under Rule 609 to introduce evidence, for 

impeachment purposes, that Plaintiff was convicted of one of more felonies. However, 

Defendants are denied leave to introduce evidence of the dates of Plaintiff’s convictions or the 

length of his sentence. Plaintiff is not permitted to offer evidence of his innocence.

17. Seventeenth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ seventeenth motion in limine seeks to exclude testimony from Plaintiff’s 

experts and require an offer of proof before their testimony. Plaintiff opposes this motion, 

arguing that such testimony should not be excluded, asserting that he is proceeding pro se and 

has been continually denied the appointment of expert witnesses on his behalf.

The Court shall defer a ruling on this motion in limine until trial. No expert witnesses 

have been subpoenaed, and the Court shall defer its ruling until the Court knows whether these 

witnesses will appear.

18. Eighteenth Motion in Limine

Defendants’ eighteenth motion in limine seeks to dismiss this case for Plaintiff’s failure 

to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 207.) Plaintiff opposes the

///

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 12 of 13
13

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

motion, arguing that he exhausted all of his available remedies before filing suit. (ECF No. 217 

at 19-20 ¶XVIII.)

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) provides that 

A[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. ' 1983], or any 

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.@ 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a). Prisoners 

are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 

549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002).

This motion is DENIED without prejudice, pending any factual finding by the jury. 

Defendants may renew their motion post verdict.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motions in limine numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14

are GRANTED;

2. Defendants’ motion in limine number 16 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART;

3. Defendants’ motion in limine number 12 is GRANTED IN PART, with the 

ruling RESERVED IN PART;

4. Defendants’ motion in limine number 18 is DENIED without prejudice; and 

5. The rulings on motions in limine numbers 15 and 17 are DEFERRED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2017 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01896-LJO-GSA Document 225 Filed 01/24/17 Page 13 of 13