Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155-16/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

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. DELEON, C. CARILLO, and A. 

GUZMAN,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

On January 15, 2016, Defendants filed “Motions in 

Limine [Nos.] 1-7[,]” in which they seek a pretrial order 

precluding the admission of certain evidence at trial. (Defs.’ 

MILs, ECF No. 92.) 

Defendants’ motions nos. 1-5 and 7 involve 

controversies that have not been shown ripe for a pretrial ruling 

since decision on each of these motions depends upon anticipated 

litigation approaches that have not been shown to be probable. 

Defendants seek in motion no. 6 to preclude Plaintiff 

from arguing that Defendants retaliated against him because he 

performed legal work for himself and others. (Id. at 10:1-23.) 

Decision on this motion is unnecessary since this issue is not 

preserved for trial in the July 21, 2015 Pretrial Order. (See

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 103 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Pretrial Order1 1:17-23, 4:26-5:2, ECF No. 84.) “[A] party [may 

not] offer evidence or advance theories at the trial which are 

not included in the [pretrial] order or which contradict its 

terms.” United States v. First Nat’l Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 

882, 886 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Further, Defendants’ motions nos. 2-4, 6, and 7 lack

the concreteness required for a pretrial in limine motion. See, 

e.g., Colton Crane Co., LLC v. Terex Cranes Wilmington, Inc., No. 

CV 08-8525 PSG (PJWx), 2010 WL 2035800, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 

2010) (stating “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”).

For the stated reasons, each motion is DENIED. 

Dated: January 28, 2016

 

1 The Pretrial Order was made final on January 12, 2016. (See Order 2:6-7, 

ECF No. 91.)

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 103 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 2