Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516-31/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

ANTWOINE BEALER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER S. RIOS and

SERGEANT R. BRANNUM,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG-PC

PRETRIAL ORDER

Deadline to file Motions in Limine: 

 July 20, 2016

Oppositions to Motions in Limine due: 

 August 3, 2016

Motions in Limine Hearing: 

 Morning of trial

 August 9, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.

 Courtroom 5 (DAD)

Other Pretrial Submissions due: 

 August 3, 2016

Jury Trial: August 9, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. 

 Courtroom 5 (DAD)

This civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, proceeds on the Fourth 

Amended Complaint filed pro se by state prisoner Antwoine Bealer (“Plaintiff”), against 

defendants Correctional Officer S. Rios and Sergeant R. Brannum (“Defendants”) for use of 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment during events occurring at Kern Valley 

State Prison on November 1, 2010.1 (ECF No. 21.) Defendants are represented by Andrea R. 

 

1 On October 29, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants 

from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a § 1983 claim. (ECF No. 33.)

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 17
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

Sloan, California Deputy Attorney General. This case is presently set for trial on August 9, 

2016 at 8:30 a.m. before District Judge Dale A. Drozd in Courtroom 5.

On June 20, 2016, Defendants filed their pretrial statement. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff has 

still not filed a pretrial statement despite having been granted an additional ten days to do so at 

the Trial Confirmation Hearing held on June 27, 2016. (Doc. No. 166.) Having reviewed 

Defendants’ pretrial statement and the remainder of the file, and having considered the 

arguments of the parties at the June 27, 2016 Trial Confirmation Hearing, the Court now issues 

a pretrial order. 

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). 

Venue in the Eastern District of California is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. There is no 

dispute concerning subject matter jurisdiction or venue.

II. Jury Trial

Plaintiff and Defendants have requested a jury trial.

III. Facts and Evidentiary Issues

A. Defendants’ Undisputed Facts

1. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was in the custody of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at 

Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP), in Facility A, Building Seven. 

2. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants Rios and Brannum were 

employed by CDCR at KVSP. 

3. On November 1, 2010, Defendant Brannum was the assigned Facility A 

Yard Sergeant. 

4. On November 1, 2010, Defendant Rios was assigned as a Search and 

Escort Officer. 

5. During the afternoon of November 1, 2010, Sergeant Brannum 

approached Plaintiff’s cell and informed him he would be receiving a 

new cellmate. 

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 17
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

6. Despite not knowing who the new assigned cellmate was, Plaintiff 

refused to accept a cellmate. 

7. Plaintiff was counseled by Defendant Brannum regarding his refusal to 

accept an assigned cellmate, which was in violation of institution 

housing policy. 

8. Shortly thereafter, Defendants Brannum and Rios escorted Plaintiff from 

his cell to be placed in Administrative Segregation for his continued 

refusal to accept a cellmate. 

9. While Plaintiff was being escorted from his cell in Building 7, across the 

upper A Yard to the medical holding cell, Plaintiff was informed he was 

being placed in Administrative Segregation for his refusal to accept a 

cellmate. 

10. Plaintiff then became resistive and attempted to head-butt Defendant 

Rios. 

11. Defendant Brannum was on Plaintiff’s left side holding onto Plaintiff’s 

left forearm. When Plaintiff attempted to strike Defendant Rios, 

Defendant Brannum pulled back and upward while holding onto 

Plaintiff’s forearm. 

12. Defendant Rios was on Plaintiff’s right side holding onto Plaintiff’s right 

forearm when Plaintiff attempted to head-butt him. Defendant Rios lifted 

Plaintiff’s right forearm up, bending Plaintiff at the waist. 

13. With Defendants Brannum and Rios’ combined weight, they were able 

to force Plaintiff to the ground. 

14. During the incident, Defendant Brannum activated his alarm, calling for 

a Code 1 – resistive inmate over his institutional radio. 

15. Officers Stewart and Bradshaw responded to Defendant Brannum’s 

emergency call and placed leg restraints on Plaintiff and escorted him to 

medical to be examined following the incident. 

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 3 of 17
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

16. An abrasion to Plaintiff’s right knee and the back of his left ankle were 

noted on the Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence. 

17. Plaintiff was issued a Rules Violation Report in connection to this 

incident, charging him with violating the California Code of Regulations, 

Title 15, Section 3005 (d)(1), for attempted battery on a peace officer. 

18. Plaintiff was found guilty of the Rules Violation report and assessed a 

loss of good time credits. 

19. Plaintiff was rehoused in Administrative Segregation following the 

incident. 

20. The associated Rules Violation Report and loss of credits was never 

overturned. 

21. Plaintiff has an extensive history of refusing cellmates and making 

threats to harm himself or others if he is assigned one. Plaintiff has 

learned how to use the system in ways to avoid being assigned a 

cellmate, despite being cleared to have one. 

22. There are no medical records which support any additional injuries other 

than the scrape to Plaintiff’s knee and ankle. 

B. Plaintiff’s Undisputed Facts

None. As noted above, plaintiff did not file a pretrial statement.

C. Defendants’ Disputed Factual Issues

1. Whether Plaintiff became resistive during the escort across the Facility A 

Yard on November 1, 2010. 

2. Whether Plaintiff attempted to head-butt Defendant Rios during the 

escort. 

3. Whether Defendants’ actions in subduing Plaintiff constitute excessive 

force. 

4. Whether Plaintiff received additional injuries which were not noted on 

the medical report taken after the incident. 

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 4 of 17
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

5. Whether Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were caused by any actions by 

Defendants or were pre-existing. 

D. Plaintiff’s Disputed Factual Issues

As noted above, plaintiff did not file a pretrial statement. However, plaintiff did 

successfully oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

E. Defendants’ Disputed Evidentiary Issues

Evidence should be excluded when it lacks relevance, consists of hearsay, is mere 

opinion, has not been authenticated, or when its probative value is substantially outweighed by 

the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion or needless delay. Fed R. Evid. 402, 403, 602, 701, 

802, 901(b). Defendants object to any evidence submitted by Plaintiff based upon, or 

containing, inadmissible hearsay, or evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent. 

Defendants will contest the admissibility of any written statements by inmates whom 

Plaintiff claims are witnesses including, but not limited to, any statement signed by said 

inmates. 

Defendants object to any opinion testimony from Plaintiff regarding any matters that 

call for medical, psychological, or dental expertise. 

Defendants reserve objections to specific testimony and exhibits until Defendants have 

had the opportunity to hear such testimony and examine such exhibits. Defendants will also file 

specific objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits once they have been exchanged with Defendants. 

Should Plaintiff, or any other incarcerated witnesses testify, Defendants will seek to 

impeach such witnesses by presenting evidence of prior felony convictions, pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Evidence, Rule 609. The verdict in this case will be affected by the credibility of 

witnesses. Therefore, Defendants argue that no one who has suffered a prior felony conviction 

is entitled to the false aura of veracity which would occur if impeachment were not allowed. 

Defendants anticipate Plaintiff will attempt to introduce evidence that he was not 

resistive and did not attempt to head-butt Defendant Rios. Defendants object to any testimony 

which goes to this issue as Plaintiff was found guilty of a rules violation report for the specific

act of attempting to head-butt Defendant Rios. Plaintiff was assessed a loss of good time 

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 5 of 17
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

credits and placed in the Administrative Segregation Unit following the conviction of his Rules 

Violation Report. Defendants assert Plaintiff is barred under the rule in Heck v. Humphrey

from introducing argument or evidence that he did not attempt to assault Defendant Rios. See

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 411 (1994).

F. Plaintiff’s Disputed Evidentiary Issues

None. Plaintiff did not file a pretrial statement.

G. Defendants’ Special Factual Information

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured on November 1, 2010, at KVSP when Defendants 

Rios and Brannum used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint proceeds under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff claims to have sustained scratches or 

abrasions to his knee, ankle, pain to his back and shoulders, as well as additional abrasions that 

were not noted in his medical records. Defendants Rios and Brannum acknowledge that 

Plaintiff sustained a scratch or abrasion to his right knee and the back of his left ankle as a 

result of this incident. 

All of the medical treatment received by Plaintiff following this incident was provided 

by the Defendants’ employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

Due to his incarceration, Plaintiff has no viable claim for lost wages or earning capacity. 

H. Plaintiff’s Special Factual Information

None. As noted above, plaintiff did not file a pretrial statement.

V. RELIEF SOUGHT 

In his Fourth Amended Complaint plaintiff seeks an order requiring that he be given 

single cell status as well as an award of compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages. 

Defendants pray for a judgment in their favor with Plaintiff taking nothing, and an 

award of attorney fees and costs. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 6 of 17
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

VI. Points of Law

This action proceeds only on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against defendants Correctional 

Officer S. Rios and Sergeant R. Brannum for use of excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. No other claims are at issue. 

A. Imposition of Liability Under Section 1983

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or 

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the 

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under 

color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or 

federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); see also

Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing “under color of 

state law”). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of § 1983, 

‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an 

act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 

Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “The requisite causal connection may be 

established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by others which the actor knows or 

reasonably should know would cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.” Preschooler II, 

479 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743). This standard of causation “closely 

resembles the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause.” Arnold v. Int’l Bus. 

Mach. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 

F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). 

/////

/////

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 7 of 17
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

B. Eighth Amendment Excessive Force

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual 

Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The objective component of an Eighth 

Amendment claim is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to 

cause harm always violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not 

significant injury is evident. Id. at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 

2002) (Eighth Amendment excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de 

minimis injuries)). However, not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a 

federal cause of action.” Id. at 9. “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual 

punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical 

force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” 

Id. at 9-10 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted).

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in 

violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether 

force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and 

sadistically to cause harm.” Id. at 7; see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986); 

Watts v. McKinney, 394 F.3d 710, 711 (9th Cir. 2005); Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 

1184 (9th Cir. 2003); Marquez v. Gutierrez, 322 F.3d 689, 691-92 (9th Cir. 2003); Clement v. 

Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2002); Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2001) 

Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000); Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 

1441 (9th Cir. 1995); Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 460 (9th Cir. 1986). 

“In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may also be 

proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the 

amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any 

efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. (internal 

/////

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 8 of 17
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

quotation marks and citations omitted). “The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth 

Amendment inquiry, but does not end it.” Id.

Furthermore, prison officials are to be accorded “wide-ranging deference” as they “must 

make their decisions ‘in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second 

chance.’” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6. This is because “prison officials are authorized and indeed 

required to take appropriate measures to maintain prison order and discipline and protect staff

and other prisoners from such violent behavior” when inmates become disruptive. LeMaire v. 

Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993).

C. Damages Issues

1. Nominal Damages

If the jury finds the plaintiff has proved his claim for violation of his constitutional 

rights, “nominal damages must be awarded >as a symbolic vindication of [the plaintiff’s] 

constitutional right’ whether or not the constitutional violation causes any actual damage.” 

George v. City of Long Beach, 973 F.2d 706, 708 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Floyd v. Laws, 929 

F.2d 1390, 1401 (9th Cir. 1991)); Schneider v. County of San Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 794 (9th 

Cir. 2002). “If the jury finds a constitutional violation, an award of nominal damages is 

mandatory, not permissive,” Floyd, 929 F.2d at 1402-03, and the amount of actual damages a

jury chooses to award, if any at all, is irrelevant to the plaintiff’s entitlement to nominal 

damages, Schneider, 285 F.3d at 794-95; Floyd at 1402-03.

2. Physical Injury Required for Mental and Emotional Damages

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o Federal civil action may be 

brought by a prisoner confined in jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental and 

emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the 

commission of a sexual act (as defined in § 2246 of Title 18).” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The 

physical injury “need not be significant but must be more than de minimis.” Oliver v. Keller, 

289 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1123-24 

(9th Cir. 2008). The physical injury requirement applies only to claims for mental or emotional 

injuries and does not bar claims for compensatory, nominal, or punitive damages. Oliver, 289 

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 9 of 17
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

F.3d at 630.

3. Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are available in § 1983 actions. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 

(9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). “Punitive damages serve to punish the defendant for 

wrongful conduct and to deter the defendant and others from repeating the wrong.” Id. at 810. 

The plaintiff has the burden of proving what, if any, punitive damages should be awarded by a 

preponderance of the evidence, id. at 807, and an award of punitive damages is predicated on 

the plaintiff proving that the defendant’s conduct was malicious, wanton, or oppressive, or in 

reckless disregard of the plaintiff=s rights, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1986); Dang, 422 

F.3d at 807-09.

4. Injunctive Relief

Because events complained of in this action took place at KVSP, and Plaintiff is no 

longer housed at that institution, Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot. Dilley v. Gunn, 

64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). 

D. Qualified Immunity

If one or more of the Defendants are found liable to Plaintiff, they are entitled to 

consideration of the defense of qualified immunity. For the purposes of qualified immunity, the 

court must consider whether the infringed right was clearly established, and “if a reasonable 

officer could have believed, in light of the clearly established law, that his conduct was lawful." 

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 199, 201-02 (2001). More recently, in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 

U.S. 223 (2009), the Court held that the first step of the test established in Saucier may be 

bypassed to facilitate proper qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 236. Therefore, if the conduct 

of the government official is inherently reasonable, the Court may extend qualified immunity to 

a government official without first ruling on the constitutionality of the official’s conduct. Id.

E. Federal Rules of Evidence

Federal Rule of Evidence 607 provides that the credibility of a witness may be attacked 

by any party. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character 

for truthfulness has been attacked. Fed. R. Evid. 608(a).

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 10 of 17
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

“For a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by 

imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence 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). However, under subdivision (b), “[I]f more than 10 years have passed since the 

witness’s conviction or release from confinement for it . . . [e]vidence of the conviction is 

admissible only if (1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, 

substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (2) the proponent gives an adverse party

reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest 

its use.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). 

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts 

cannot be used to prove the character of the person in order to show conduct in conformity with 

that character trait. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Such prior acts may be admissible for other purposes 

only, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or 

absence of mistake or accident. Id.

VII. Abandoned Issues

None.

VIII. Witnesses

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including 

rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN 

THIS SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR 

UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT 

“MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).

A. Plaintiff’s Witnesses

1. Himself, Antwoine Bealer2

 

2 Defendants are not required to call all of the witnesses they have listed in their Pretrial 

Statement. However, as is the Court’s general practice in civil rights actions brought be 

incarcerated individuals on their own behalf, the witnesses the defense plans to call shall be 

present on August 9, 2016, by 9:30 a.m. and shall be available for plaintiff to call on direct 

examination in his case in chief.

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 11 of 17
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

B. Defendants’ Witnesses

Percipient Witnesses Who Will Testify in Person

1. Defendant Brannum 

2. Defendant Rios 

3. Officer S. Stewart 

4. Officer D. Bradshaw 

5. Registered Nurse T. Torricer 

6. Custodian of Records for Plaintiff’s Prison Central File 

7. Custodian of Records for Plaintiff’s Prison Medical File

Expert Witnesses Who Will Testify in Person

1. California State Prison – Corcoran Correctional Lieutenant J. Tony Diaz 

will testify concerning the use of force policies and procedures at for 

CDCR. He will also discuss the policies and procedures on double-cell 

and single-cell status for inmates. 

2. KVSP Chief Medical Executive S. Lopez will testify concerning injuries 

Plaintiff sustained on November 1, 2010, and the causes of Plaintiff’s 

pain or injuries. 

Defendants have already served their expert witness disclosure to Plaintiff. 

Defendants reserve the right to call witnesses not listed above for purposes of 

impeachment or rebuttal. Defendants further reserve the right to call any witnesses listed by 

Plaintiff. 

IX. Exhibits

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at 

trial. NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE 

ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS 

 

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 12 of 17
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

ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT AMANIFEST INJUSTICE.@ Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11).

A. Defendants’ Exhibits

Defendants intend to introduce the following exhibits at trial:

1. Plaintiff’s CDCR 602 Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form Log No. KVSP-O10-02255, dated November 14, 2010, and all associated responses. 

2. Plaintiff’s Rules Violation Report History, particularly his past related to 

refusal to accept a cellmate. 

Defendants reserve the right to introduce documents not listed above for purposes of

impeachment or rebuttal. Defendants further reserve the right to introduce any documents 

listed by Plaintiff, however plaintiff has not filed a Pretrial Statement and therefore has listed 

no exhibits.

B. Plaintiff’s Exhibits

None. As noted, plaintiff did not file a pretrial statement.

X. Discovery Documents To Be Used At Trial

Defendants anticipate offering Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories, Responses to 

Requests for Admissions, Responses to Requests for Production, and deposition transcript, or 

portions thereof, for purposes of impeachment or rebuttal. 

XI. Further Discovery or Motions

Defendants do not contend that further discovery should be conducted. Defendants 

further contend that no further discovery related Motions should be filed, other than Motions in 

Limine. But Defendants do intend to file a motion requesting sanctions due to harassment by 

Plaintiff. 

XII. Stipulations

Defendants request a stipulation as to the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s prison central 

file and medical file. 

/////

/////

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 13 of 17
14

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

CAUTION: The parties are cautioned that if any stipulation is obtained in the future, it 

must be in writing, and must be provided to Courtroom Deputy Renee Gaumnitz no later than 

August 3, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. (noon).

XIII. Amendments/Dismissals

Defendants do not request any amendments to pleadings or additions or substitution of 

parties. 

XIV. Settlement Negotiations

Defendants do not anticipate settlement at this time and do not request a settlement 

conference under L.R. 270. No mandatory settlement conference will be scheduled in this 

action.

XV. Agreed Statement

Defendants do not believe that presentation of an Agreed Statement of Facts is feasible 

or advisable given the disputed issues of fact concerning the events of November 1, 2010. 

XVI. Separate Trial Of Issues

Defendants request that the issue of the amount of punitive damages be tried separately 

from the remaining issues in this case. In connection with this request, Defendants request that 

no evidence concerning their financial status be admitted unless and until the finder of fact 

determines that punitive damages are warranted in this case. Bifurcation should be granted 

under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it will expedite and 

economize the matter. Should Defendants prevail on liability, no trial on punitive damages will 

be necessary. Should the jury determine that punitive damages are appropriate, Defendants 

request a separate trial on the amount of punitive damages. 

XVII. Impartial Experts - Limitation Of Experts

Defendants do not request or recommend appointment by the Court of any impartial 

expert witnesses, nor request or recommend any limitations on the number of expert witnesses 

who may be called to testify in this case.

/////

/////

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 14 of 17
15

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

XVIII.Attorney’s Fees

Defendants state that Plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona and has not incurred 

any attorney’s fees. Defendants will request the award of costs after trial should Defendants 

prevail. 

XIX. Trial Exhibits

Special handling of Plaintiff’s inmate records may be appropriate as to any confidential 

sections where disclosure may compromise the safety and security of the institution, staff, or 

other inmates, or impinge on Plaintiff’s medical privacy.

XX. Trial Protective Order

In the event that Defendants are required to disclose information concerning their 

financial status, Defendants will request that the Court issue a Protective Order concerning this 

information, under Local Rule 141.1(b)(2).

XXI. Miscellaneous

Trial may be expedited if plaintiff agrees to stipulate to the authenticity of the inmate 

records identified in Defendants’ Pretrial Statement. See XI, above.

XXII. Further Trial Preparation

A. Motions In Limine Hearing and Briefing Schedule

Any motions in limine shall be filed by July 20, 2016. Any opposition is due by August 

3, 2016. The Court will hear the motions in limine on the morning of trial, August 9, 2016 at 

8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 5. 

B. Other

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If 

they wish to file trial briefs, they must do so on or before August 3, 2016.

The Court will prepare the verdict form, which the parties will have the opportunity to 

review on the morning of trial. If the parties wish to submit a proposed verdict form for 

consideration, they must do so on or before August 3, 2016.

If Plaintiff wishes to file proposed jury instructions, he must do so on or before August 

3, 2016. Defendants shall file proposed jury instructions as provided in Local Rule 163 on or 

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 15 of 17
16

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

before August 3, 2016. In selecting proposed instructions, the parties shall use Ninth Circuit 

Model Civil Jury Instructions to the extent possible. All jury instructions must be submitted in 

duplicate: One set will indicate which party proposes the instruction, with each instruction 

numbered or lettered, and containing citation of supporting authority, and the customary 

legend, i.e., “Given, Given as Modified, or Refused,” showing the Court=s action, with regard to 

each instruction. One set will be an exact duplicate of the first, except it will not contain any 

identification of the party offering the instruction or supporting authority or the customary 

legend of the Court's disposition. Defendants shall provide the Court with a copy of their

proposed jury instructions via e-mail at: dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

Proposed voir dire questions, if any, shall be filed on or before August 3, 2016. Local 

Rule 162.1.

The parties may serve and file a non-argumentative, brief statement of the case which is 

suitable for reading to the jury at the outset of jury selection on or before August 3, 2016. The 

Court will consider the parties’ statements but will draft its own statement. The parties will be 

provided with the opportunity to review the Court’s prepared statement on the morning of trial.

The original and four copies of all trial exhibits along with exhibit lists shall be 

submitted to Courtroom Deputy Renee Gaumnitz no later than August 3, 2016. All of 

Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “PX” and numbered sequentially 

beginning with 100 (e.g., PX-100, PX-101, etc.). All of Defendants’ exhibits shall be premarked with the prefix “DX” and numbered sequentially beginning with 200 (e.g., DX-200, 

DX 201, etc.). 

If any videotape or DVD will be used for any purpose at trial by any of the parties, the 

party shall lodge a copy of the videotape or DVD with Courtroom Deputy Renee Gaumnitz by 

4:00 p.m. on August 3, 2016. If a written transcript of audible words on the tape or DVD is 

available, the Court requests that the transcript be lodged with the Court, solely for the aid of 

the Court.

If any party intends to use a laptop computer for presentation of evidence or intends to 

use any other audio/visual equipment belonging to the Court, that party shall contact 

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 16 of 17
17

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

Courtroom Deputy Renee Gaumnitz at least one week prior to trial so that any necessary 

arrangements and/or training may be scheduled.

XXIII.Objections to Pretrial Order

Any party may, within ten (10) calendar days after the date of service of this Order, 

file and serve written objections to any of the provisions of this Order. Such objections shall 

specify the requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE 

GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE 

DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION, ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ON 

ANY PARTY WHO CAUSES NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 169 Filed 07/08/16 Page 17 of 17