Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01008/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01008-15/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 

GOLDY RAYBON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HARDY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB 

ORDER DENYING CONTINUANCE MOTION 

AND SUPPLEMENTING PRETRIAL ORDER 

On February 11, 2016, Defendant Hardy filed an ex parte 

application under Local Rule 144(e) seeking to have a motion he 

filed to continue the trial date heard on shortened time. (Def.’s 

Ex Parte Appl., ECF No. 60.) Defendant seeks in the referenced 

motion to continue the trial date by one week, arguing “[g]ood 

cause exists under Rule 16” because two medical witnesses whom 

both parties intend to call at trial will be traveling abroad on 

the currently scheduled trial commencement date. (Def.’s Mot. 

3:3-8, ECF No. 61.) 

Defendant’s motion does not address nor show 

satisfaction of the legal standard applicable to the modification 

of a final pretrial order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e) (“The court 

may modify the order issued after a final pretrial conference 

only to prevent manifest injustice.” (emphasis added)). Also, 

Defendant’s requested one week continuance is impractical because 

the Court has a criminal jury trial scheduled to commence on the 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 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 

2 

requested new trial commencement date. Therefore, Defendant’s 

continuance motion is DENIED. 

OPPORTUNITY TO CONSENT TO TRIAL BY THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Should the parties timely, jointly consent to have the 

assigned Magistrate Judge preside over all matters in this case, 

including trial, with any appeal going directly to the Ninth 

Circuit, they may be able to obtain a different trial date from 

the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c)(1). The parties are 

“free to withhold consent without adverse substantive 

consequences.” 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c)(2); see also E.D. Cal. R. 305 

(governing procedures for the disposition of civil actions on 

consent of the parties). 

SUPPLEMENT TO PRETRIAL ORDER 

The July 21, 2015 Pretrial Order (“PO”) is supplemented 

as follows: 

A. Claim Preserved for Trial 

The PO evinces the following claim is preserved for 

trial. 

1) Whether Defendant Hardy subjected Plaintiff to 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment by the 

manner in which Defendant applied tape on Plaintiff’s waist on 

September 21, 2009, while Plaintiff was under contraband 

surveillance watch at Folsom State Prison. (PO 1:18-19, 3:23-26, 

4:20-21, ECF No. 53.) 

 B. Trial Schedule 

 Trial is currently scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. 

on March 22, 2016. Trial is held Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday 

of each week from 9:00 a.m. until approximately 4:30 p.m. 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 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 

3 

However, once the jury begins deliberating, the parties shall be 

available for communication with the jury Monday through Friday. 

C. Proposed Statement of Undisputed Facts 

Attached is a proposed statement of undisputed facts to 

be read to the jury after the preliminary jury instructions are 

given. The attached undisputed facts were modeled after the 

statement of undisputed facts contained in the PO, with slight 

modifications. For example, abbreviations have been removed to 

avoid juror confusion. Neither party objected to the PO within 

the thirty days provided to do so. (See PO 11:26-2.) Therefore, 

the PO, as supplemented herein, is final. 

D. Miscellaneous Provisions 

 1. Since it is evident that Defendant acted under 

color of law at all relevant times, this issue need not be 

presented to the jury. 

 2. It is expected that Plaintiff will appear at trial 

seated at the counsel table with a leg restraint that is shielded 

from the jury’s view by a fabric panel that runs from the bottom 

of counsel table close to the floor, and that Plaintiff will 

offer his testimony from the counsel table. 

 3. Seven (7) jurors will be selected using the 

“struck jury” system. The struck jury system is “designed to 

allow both the [plaintiff] and the defen[dant] a maximum number 

of peremptory challenges. The venire . . . start[s] with about 

[18] potential jurors, from which the [plaintiff] and the 

[defendant] alternate[] with strikes until a petite panel of 

[seven] jurors remain[s].” Powers v Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 404-05 

(1991); see also United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 422 F.3d 897, 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 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 

4 

899 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing the “struck jury” system). 

 The Jury Administrator randomly selects potential 

jurors and places their names on a list that will be provided to 

each party in the numerical sequence in which they were randomly 

selected. Each juror will be placed in his or her randomlyselected seat. The first randomly selected juror will be in jury 

seat number one, which is at the extreme right-hand side of the 

jury box in the top row as the jury box is viewed from the well 

of the courtroom. The eighth juror will be in the eighth seat. 

The ninth selected juror will occupy the seat located at the 

extreme right-hand side of the jury box in the bottom row. The 

fifteenth seat will be in the left-hand side of that row. Three 

chairs will be placed in front of the jury box. The sixteenth 

juror will occupy the seat on the right and the eighteenth juror 

will occupy the seat on the left. The first seven jurors on a 

list, which shall be given to counsel, will constitute the petit 

jury unless one or more of those seven is excused for some 

reason. Assuming that the first and fifth jurors on the list are 

excused, the second listed juror becomes the first, and the other 

jurors’ numbers are changed accordingly, with the ninth juror on 

the list becoming seventh on the list; however, the jurors 

continue to be identified by their original numbers. 

4. The judge may conduct all voir dire or may 

authorize each side fifteen minutes for additional voir dire. If 

the judge conducts all voir dire, the judge will ask, “Does a 

party have additional input?” If a party responds, “Yes,” that 

party shall give the Courtroom Deputy that party’s written 

question or questions. 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 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 

5 

 Following voir dire questioning, each party shall take 

turns exercising his three allotted peremptory strikes. The 

parties will be given a sheet of paper (“strike sheet”) upon 

which they shall silently exercise their peremptory strikes, 

commencing with Plaintiff, by passing the strike sheet back and 

forth until all peremptory challenges are used or waived. If a 

party elects to pass rather than exercise a particular peremptory 

challenge, that party shall write the word “pass” for that 

challenge, and that challenge is waived.1 

 5. The trial will be conducted in two phases: 

liability and punitive damages. If the jury finds in favor of 

Plaintiff on his excessive force claim, trial on punitive damages 

(both liability and the amount of punitive damages) will 

immediately follow. 

 6. When the judge is conducting voir dire, the 

following will be stated to the venire: 

 This is a civil lawsuit filed by the 

Plaintiff against the Defendant. The 

Plaintiff is representing himself, which 

means that, in addition to his role as the 

Plaintiff, he is acting as his own attorney 

during the trial. 

 The lawsuit concerns when Plaintiff was 

a state prisoner housed at Folsom State 

Prison, and when Defendant was on the 

correctional staff at that prison. 

 For period of time in that prison, 

Plaintiff was under contraband surveillance 

watch, which is reserved for inmates believed 

to have swallowed contraband or hidden it in 

 

1

 See United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 422 F.3d 897, 899 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(discussing waiver of peremptory challenges in “struck jury system”); see 

generally United States v. Yepiz, 685 F.3d 840, 845-46 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(indicating “‘use it or lose it’ voir dire practice” is authorized if “the 

composition of the panel” does not change). 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 5 of 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 

6 

their body cavities. Inmates on contraband 

surveillance watch have the legs and waist of 

their boxer shorts, and the arms and legs of 

their jumpsuits, taped closed to prevent them 

from accessing their body waste and disposing 

of or further concealing contraband. 

 Plaintiff alleges Defendant subjected 

him to excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution by the manner in which Defendant 

applied tape on Plaintiff’s waist. 

 Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegation. 

Neither party need give an opening statement since in a 

prior pro se prisoner trial, it was evident that an opening 

statement caused the plaintiff to be confused about the nature of 

the trial proceeding, and sufficient information will be provided 

to the jury about the trial. Further, each party’s closing 

argument for the first phase of trial may not exceed forty-five 

(45) minutes. Plaintiff may decide how to allocate his total time 

for closing argument between his opening and rebuttal arguments.2

 If a second phase of trial is needed to determine 

whether to award and the amount of punitive damages, each side is 

limited to ten (10) minutes for closing argument on punitive 

damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 12, 2016 

 

 

2

 See United States v. Patterson, 678 F.2d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 1982) 

(discussing the district court’s discretion in limiting the length of closing 

arguments). 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 6 of 11
1 

UNDISPUTED FACTS 

 A court order issued before this trial that determined 

the following facts concerning this case are undisputed. 

Therefore, you should treat each of the following facts as 

having been proved. 

 Plaintiff Goldy Raybon is properly in the custody of 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

 Plaintiff was housed at Folsom State Prison at all 

times relevant to this case. 

 On Saturday, September 19, 2009, Plaintiff was placed 

on contraband surveillance watch because he was suspected of 

hiding contraband in his rectum. 

 Contraband surveillance watch is reserved for inmates 

believed to have swallowed contraband or hidden it in their body 

cavities. 

 Inmates on contraband surveillance watch must pass 

three recorded bowel movements that are contraband-free before 

they can be removed from contraband surveillance watch. 

 While on contraband surveillance watch, inmates are 

kept under direct and constant visual surveillance. 

 Contraband surveillance watch inmates are checked by 

correctional and medical personnel frequently, and they are 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 7 of 11
2 

given meals, snacks, and drinks regularly to help facilitate 

bowel movements. 

 Upon entering contraband surveillance watch, inmates 

are given pairs of socks, two sets of boxer shorts, and two sets 

of jumpsuits. 

 Inmates on contraband surveillance watch have the legs 

and waist of their boxer shorts, and the arms and legs of their 

jumpsuits, taped closed to prevent them from accessing their 

body waste and disposing of or further concealing contraband. 

 Inmates on contraband surveillance watch are kept in 

waist restraints with handcuffs and leg restraints. 

 Cells designated for contraband surveillance watch do 

not have showers or flushing toilets because of the possibility 

that contraband may be recovered and discarded. 

 Contraband surveillance watch inmates must contact 

staff when they need to urinate or defecate. 

 A portable toilet and toilet paper is provided when 

the inmate needs to defecate, and a plastic urinal device is 

provided when he needs to urinate. The amount of urine expelled 

is measured and recorded by correctional officers, and the feces 

is searched to locate possible contraband. 

 When Plaintiff was put on contraband surveillance 

watch on September 19, 2009, he was given a new pair of socks, 

two pairs of boxer shorts (one facing forward and the other 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 8 of 11
3 

backward), and two jumpsuits (one facing forward and the other 

backward). 

 Before putting the first jumpsuit on, correctional 

officers taped Plaintiff’s boxers around his thighs and waist. 

 After that, Plaintiff put the first jumpsuit on, and 

correctional officers taped his ankles, thighs, waist, arms, and 

wrists. 

 After that, Plaintiff put the second jumpsuit on, and 

officers taped his ankles, thighs, waist, arms, and wrists 

again. 

 Officers then applied mechanical restraints around 

Plaintiff’s ankles, and waist restraints around his mid-section, 

and they placed him in handcuffs that were connected to the 

waist restraints. 

 A correctional officer was stationed right outside 

Plaintiff’s cell the entire time he was on contraband 

surveillance watch. 

 When Plaintiff needed to relieve himself, he told the 

officer outside his cell, and the officer then notified the 

sergeant. 

 After the sergeant was notified that Plaintiff had to 

relieve himself, two or three officers went to Plaintiff’s cell, 

undid all of the tape around Plaintiff’s clothes, removed the 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 9 of 11
4 

mechanical restraints around his waist, and provided him with a 

urinal for urination or a portable toilet for defecation. 

 On average, it takes about fifteen minutes from the 

moment an inmate on contraband surveillance watch asks to 

relieve himself to the time his restraints are replaced and he 

is put back in his cell. 

 On September 21, 2009, at 5:10 p.m., Plaintiff was 

removed from his cell. Plaintiff urinated after he was removed 

from his cell, and after that, his jumpsuits were replaced, his 

tape was re-applied by Defendant Hardy, and his vital signs were 

checked. 

 Plaintiff’s vital signs were checked again at 8:00 

p.m. At 8:30 p.m., a nurse took Plaintiff to the Treatment and 

Triage Area after he complained of shortness of breath. 

 Plaintiff did not tell the nurse why he was 

experiencing shortness of breath. 

 Dr. Reddy evaluated Plaintiff at the Treatment and 

Triage Area at approximately 9:10 p.m. 

 Plaintiff’s chief complaint to Dr. Reddy was shortness 

of breath, but he did not mention Defendant Hardy or say that 

Hardy (or any other officer) applied his waist restraints too 

tight. 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 10 of 11
5 

 Plaintiff was alert and oriented during Dr. Reddy’s 

evaluation, and his blood pressure, pulse, and oxygen saturation 

levels were normal and stable. 

 Dr. Reddy determined that there were no clear medical 

indications to send Plaintiff for emergency care outside of the 

Treatment and Triage Area because Plaintiff was clinically 

stable. 

 Plaintiff was released from the Treatment and Triage 

Area and sent back to his contraband surveillance watch cell 

about twenty minutes after Dr. Reddy evaluated him. 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-GEB-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/16/16 Page 11 of 11