Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794-30/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

Plaintiff Saul Barrios Perez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants Dill, Harden, Sobbe, Sandoval, Tyson, Chan, and Brown for conditions of 

confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 109; ECF No. 110). 

SAUL BARRIOS PEREZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DILL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01794-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

IN LIMINE NO. 1

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

IN LIMINE NO. 2

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

IN LIMINE NO 3

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 

4

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 

5

(ECF No. 124)

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 10
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

On January 4, 2016, Defendants filed five motions in limine in a joint filing. (ECF No. 124.) 

Plaintiff did not file any written opposition, and the motions were deemed submitted when the time for 

filing any opposition expired. Local Rule 230(l). 

The motions were heard before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe on January 28, 2016. 

Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Jonathan B. Paul appeared telephonically on 

behalf of Defendants. At the hearing, Plaintiff informed the Court that he had mailed an opposition to 

the Court to be filed, but it had been returned to him. He also informed the Court that he served his 

opposition on Defendants, and Defense Counsel agreed that he had received the opposition. Plaintiff 

was given a full opportunity to present his arguments in opposition orally at the hearing.

I. Motions in Limine

A. Standard

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, 105 S. Ct. 460, 83 L. Ed. 

2d 443 (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) (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”); see cf. Oracle 

Am. Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10–03561 WHA, 2012 WL 1189898, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012) 

(concluding that “a broad categorical exclusion” was unwarranted). Additionally, some evidentiary 

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 10
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

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. Analysis

1. Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Certain Exhibits

On November 18, 2015, this Court issued an order imposing sanctions on Plaintiff for his 

failure to show cause for failing to file a pretrial statement. (ECF No. 118.) As part of that order, 

Plaintiff was required to file and serve a list his proposed exhibits for trial by November 25, 2015. (Id. 

at 3.) The order provided that only those exhibits on the timely filed and served list would be 

permitted to be offered by Plaintiff at trial, except as otherwise ordered. (Id.) On December 2, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed his list of proposed trial exhibits, dated and signed November 25, 2015. (ECF No. 122.)

In Defendants’ first motion in limine, they argue that Plaintiff should be precluded from 

offering certain exhibits on his proposed exhibit list. (ECF No. 124, pp. 2-5.) In support, they first 

argue that Plaintiff’s exhibit list was not timely filed, and therefore his proposed exhibits should be 

excluded for non-compliance with the Court’s November 18, 2015 order. However, under the prison 

mailbox rule, a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be filed as of the date the prisoner 

delivered it to prison authorities for mailing to the court clerk. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

270, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 

2009) (mailbox rule articulated in Houston applies to civil rights actions). Plaintiff’s exhibit list lacks a 

proof of service, but the signature block is dated November 25, 2015, so the Court will deem it filed 

on that date. See Butler v. Long, 752 F.3d 1177, 1178 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We assume that 

[petitioner] turned his petition over to prison authorities on the same day he signed it and apply the 

mailbox rule.”). Thus, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit list was timely

filed, and his proposed exhibits will not be excluded due to any non-compliance with the Court’s 

November 18, 2015 order.

Defendants next argue that although they do not object to certain exhibits which appear to be 

largely the same as their own proposed exhibits, several of the items described on Plaintiff’s proposed 

exhibit list are so vague that it cannot be determined what the exhibits are. Defendants contend that 

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 10
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

they are prejudiced by Plaintiff’s vague items on his exhibit list because they cannot file specific 

motions in limine or prepare objections related to those exhibits. 

The lists of proposed exhibits the parties are required to file are critical to trial management, by 

helping to narrow the scope of evidence that may be presented at trial, and by providing the opposing 

party with fair notice and opportunity to defend. Due to the importance of the need for a trial court to 

manage trials in this manner, reviewing courts have repeatedly upheld the exclusion by a trial court of 

evidence not identified in a pretrial order. See U.S. v. First Nat. Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 886 n.5 

(9th Cir. 1981) (collecting cases). Certainly, descriptions of exhibits on a proposed exhibit list which 

are too vague to allow for the exhibit to be identified do not aid trial courts in managing the evidence 

to be presented at trial, nor do they give proper notice to the opposing party. Thus, a trial court would 

be within its discretion to exclude such evidence. 

Here, several of the items in Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit list are too vague to allow for 

identification of what the exhibit is. These include the following proposed exhibits by Plaintiff: (1) any 

and all documents that are relevant to contraband issue of February 2006 at Kern Valley State Prison, 

(2) any and all documents that are relevant to Plaintiff’s medical conditions, on or approximately on 

February 2006, (3) any documents related to CDC Form 114-D – Administrative Segregation Unit 

Placement Notice for Plaintiff dated November 24, 2005, including documents concerning Plaintiff’s 

reissue; (4) any and all penal codes, case laws, and constitutional law governing the conduct of 

correctional staff and correctional institutions when dealing with inmates’ civil rights/human rights; 

and (5) any and all relevant documentation concerning Saul Barrios Perez contraband watch issue of 

February 2006. These vague descriptions of categories of items are worded more like discovery 

requests than disclosures on an exhibit list. Rather than designating something specific as proposed 

evidence, they require interpretation as to what is relevant to, related to, or concerns certain issues or 

matters. These descriptions of proposed exhibits do not provide sufficient information for the Court or 

Defendants to determine what evidence Plaintiff specifically intends to present at trial.

One item on Plaintiff’s proposed exhibit list is sufficiently descriptive to identify what it is: the 

CSR’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s charges for attempted murder of a correctional officer dated November 

24, 2005. The Court questioned the parties about this proposed exhibit during the hearing. Copies of 

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 4 of 10
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

all proposed exhibits were due to be exchanged by the parties and submitted to the Court by January 

15, 2016 under the pretrial order, but neither the Court nor Defendants have received a copy of this 

proposed exhibit from Plaintiff. Defense Counsel also stated he was not aware of any such document 

existing. Plaintiff stated that he has previously attempted to obtain a copy of this document, but 

admitted that he does not possess any such document, nor has he submitted any copies of it to the 

Court or Defendants. Based on Plaintiff’s admission that he does not possess any such document and 

has not disclosed it to Defendants or the Court in compliance with the pretrial order, it shall be 

excluded. Plaintiff may, however, testify as to any facts in his knowledge regarding the dismissal or 

reduction of the attempted murder charges, subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Finally, Defendants also object to Plaintiff’s designation of (1) Title 15 of the California Code 

of Regulations (“CCR”), and (2) the Department of Correctional and Rehabilitation Operations 

Manual (the “D.O.M”), as exhibits. As Defendants note, Plaintiff’s designation of the entire Title 15 of 

the CCR and the entire D.O.M., is overbroad and vague. At the hearing, Plaintiff argued that he 

intended to specify those sections of Tile 15 of the CCR and the D.O.M. as pertain to issues relevant to 

this matter, including contraband issues, sanitation issues, and restraints, but he had not yet been able 

to do so due to limited library access. This matter has been pending since December 2007, and 

Plaintiff has been informed of the current trial date before this Court since October 2, 2015. Plaintiff 

should have been able to comply with the requirement for him to specifically identify the sections of 

Title 15 of the CCR and the D.O.M. that he would like to introduce as evidence at trial by now. Due to 

his failure to do so, he is precluded from introducing those exhibits into evidence. Plaintiff may still, if 

he desires, use those exhibits in questioning witnesses or in testifying.

In sum, Defendants’ first motion in limine is granted, with certain caveats. Plaintiff is 

precluded from introducing any exhibits into evidence except for the following: (1) CDC Form 602 

Inmate Appeal Form concerning contraband issue; (2) CDC Form 7219 – Medical Report or Injury or 

Unusual Occurrence, completed by S. Williams, RN on February 8, 2006; (3) CDC Form 128G –

Classification Chrono for Institutional Classification Committee Special/SHU Review conducted on 

February 9, 2006; (4) CDC Form 114-D - Administrative Segregation Unit Placement Notice for 

Plaintiff, dated November 24, 2005; (5) CDC Form 115 – Rule Violation Report, Log No. FA-05-11-

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 5 of 10
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

048, adjudicated February 2, 2006; (6) CDC Form 128B – General Chrono, Concerning Loss of 

Privileges by Inmate Perez, dated January 7, 2006; (7) CDCR Form 115 – Rule Violation Report, Log 

No. B00-11-0084, adjudicated December 22, 2000; and (8) CDCR Form 128G – Classification 

Chrono for Institutional Classification Committee Initial ASU Review conducted on January 12, 2006. 

Plaintiff may offer those exhibits if he so chooses, in compliance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Plaintiff is also not precluded from testifying about the matters identified above.

2. Motion in Limine No. 2 to

Exclude Non-Party Witnesses from the Courtroom During Trial

Defendants’ second motion in limine seeks to exclude all witnesses from the trial, except for 

Plaintiff and the individually named Defendants, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 615. That rule 

provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they 

cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But 

this rule does not authorize excluding:

(a) a party who is a natural person . . . .

Fed. R. Evid. 615(a). Plaintiff also stated during the hearing that he does not oppose this motion. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ second motion in limine and exclude all nonparty witnesses from the courtroom during trial proceedings.

3. Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence About Indemnification

 Defendants’ third motion in limine seeks to exclude any evidence, argument, or reference to 

the fact that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) agrees to defend 

and indemnify the Defendants against any compensatory damages awarded in this matter, on the 

grounds that this information is irrelevant and prejudicial. At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that he does 

not oppose this motion.

Information regarding whether CDCR provided the defense for, would pay any verdict for, or 

would reimburse Defendants for any compensatory damage award is not relevant to whether the 

Defendants engaged in the Eighth Amendment violations that Plaintiff alleges they did. Fed. R. Evid. 

401. Even if such information were relevant, it should be excluded because its probative value is 

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 6 of 10
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

substantially outweighed by both a danger of unfair prejudice and a danger of confusing the issues. 

Fed. R. Evid. 403. Therefore, Defendants’ third motion in limine is granted.

4. Motion in Limine No. 4 to

Include Evidence of Plaintiff’s Felony Conviction

Defendants’ fourth motion in limine seeks an order permitting the introduction into evidence of 

Plaintiff’s felony conviction in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FSB0312, should 

Plaintiff testify at trial. Specifically, Defendants seek to introduce an abstract of the judgment from 

that case to impeach Plaintiff’s character for truthfulness, based on his convictions for murder and 

attempted robbery, and his sentence to a term of 23 years plus life without the possibility of parole. 

During the hearing, Defendants further noted that the date Plaintiff’s incarceration began in 1997 is 

relevant here, because they seek to argue that Plaintiff either has known of or should have known of 

certain rules and regulations since that date.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. He argued at the hearing that the length of his incarceration is 

prejudicial and improper to discuss, his convictions are more than 10 years old and therefore too old to 

introduce, and that he should be able to argue that despite the length of any rules being in effect, they 

are not always enforced in the same manner in practice.

Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(A) provides that evidence of a conviction for a crime 

punishable for more than one year is admissible, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case to attack a 

witness’s character for truthfulness. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(A). Evidence of a conviction under this 

rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or 

release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). 

As Defendants correctly argue, since Plaintiff is currently serving the sentence for the felony 

convictions at issue, his conviction qualifies under Rule 609(a)(1)(A) and must be admitted, subject to 

Rule 403. The facts that Plaintiff has been convicted of two felonies is probative to the issue of 

Plaintiff’s character for truthfulness, and there is little to no prejudicial effect, since the jury will be 

aware that Plaintiff has been incarcerated based on the fact that he brings his claims as a prisoner. 

Defendants have also shown that the date of Plaintiff’s incarceration for the sentence he is currently 

serving is relevant as well, and the prejudicial effect of that date is low for the reason previously noted. 

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 7 of 10
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

However, evidence about the nature of Plaintiff’s convictions, for attempted robbery and 

murder, is highly prejudicial to Plaintiff, and there is no probative value of that evidence to the Eighth 

Amendment claims at issue in this case. Defense Counsel stated at the hearing that Defendants have 

not claimed to be aware of the nature of Plaintiff’s convictions at the time of the incidents at issue, and 

thus Defendants do not intend to argue that any special precautions they may have taken based on that 

knowledge. Accordingly, evidence about the nature of Plaintiff’s convictions is irrelevant to this 

matter. 

Furthermore, the Court is concerned that evidence about the length and terms of Plaintiff’s 

convictions–23 years plus life without the possibility of parole–invites speculation from the jury 

regarding the nature of Plaintiff’s convictions, and therefore there is a high risk of prejudice to him

from introducing that evidence. In contrast, there is little probative value to discussing the length of 

Plaintiff’s remaining incarceration, particularly since Defendants will be allowed to elicit evidence 

regarding the date his current incarceration began. Since the abstract of judgment Defendants propose 

as an exhibit contains information concerning the nature of Plaintiff’s convictions and his sentence, its 

introduction into evidence is prejudicial to Plaintiff.

In sum, based on the factors to consider in deciding whether to exclude relevant evidence 

under Rule 403 here, Defendant’s fourth motion in limine is granted in part and denied in part. 

Defendant may elicit testimony concerning the fact that Plaintiff has been convicted of two felonies, 

including the number of felonies, the date his convictions began, and that he has been imprisoned 

since that date through at least the date of trial. However, Defendant is precluded from introducing 

evidence, arguments or otherwise referencing concerning the nature of the crimes for which Plaintiff 

was convicted, the length and conditions of his sentence, and is precluded from introducing the 

abstract of judgment from San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. FSB0312 into evidence, 

since the probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to Plaintiff.

5. Motion in Limine No. 5 to Allow

Teleconference Testimony of Custodian of Records

Defendants’ fifth motion in limine seeks to allow the custodian of records of the CDCR 

institution where Plaintiff is housed at trial to testify via teleconference. At the hearing, Defendants 

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 8 of 10
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

modified this motion to add that, in the alternative, they seek to have the custodians of records 

authenticate their exhibits by written declaration, pursuant to the terms of the pretrial order. (ECF No. 

199, p. 8 n.3.) Declarations regarding authenticity for the documents were submitted to the Court for 

review, and the Court found them sufficient to establish authenticity. Plaintiff also stated that he did 

not oppose the authentication of the exhibits by declaration, though he reserved other objections.

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ request to have the custodian of records testify via 

videoconference, as there is insufficient time before trial to make suitable arrangements for such 

testimony. However, Defendants’ request to allow the custodians of records to authenticate their 

proposed exhibits by written declarations is granted. 

II. Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion in limine #1 to exclude certain exhibits is GRANTED, with certain 

caveats. Plaintiff is precluded from introducing any exhibits into evidence except for the following: 

(1) CDC Form 602 Inmate Appeal Form concerning contraband issue; (2) CDC Form 7219 – Medical 

Report or Injury or Unusual Occurrence, completed by S. Williams, RN on February 8, 2006; (3) CDC 

Form 128G – Classification Chrono for Institutional Classification Committee Special/SHU Review 

conducted on February 9, 2006; (4) CDC Form 114-D - Administrative Segregation Unit Placement 

Notice for Plaintiff, dated November 24, 2005; (5) CDC Form 115 – Rule Violation Report, Log No. 

FA-05-11-048, adjudicated February 2, 2006; (6) CDC Form 128B – General Chrono, Concerning 

Loss of Privileges by Inmate Perez, dated January 7, 2006; (7) CDCR Form 115 – Rule Violation 

Report, Log No. B00-11-0084, adjudicated December 22, 2000; and (8) CDCR Form 128G –

Classification Chrono for Institutional Classification Committee Initial ASU Review conducted on 

January 12, 2006. Plaintiff may offer those exhibits if he so chooses, in compliance with the Federal 

Rules of Evidence. 

Plaintiff is not precluded from testifying about any facts in his knowledge regarding the 

dismissal or reduction of his alleged attempted murder charges, subject to the Federal Rules of 

Evidence. Plaintiff is also not precluded from using Title 15 of the CCR or the D.O.M. to formulate 

questions for witnesses or testimony, but he may not introduce those exhibits into evidence;

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 9 of 10
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

2. Defendants’ motion in limine # 2 to exclude non-party witnesses from the courtroom 

during trial is GRANTED;

3. Defendants’ motion in limine #3 to exclude any evidence, argument, or reference to the 

fact that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation may or has paid for any defense 

costs or damages awarded in this matter, is GRANTED;

4. Defendants’ motion in limine #4 to include evidence of Plaintiff’s felony conviction is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant may elicit testimony concerning the fact 

that Plaintiff has been convicted of two felonies, including the number of felonies, the date his 

convictions began, and that he has been imprisoned since that date through at least the date of trial. 

However, Defendant is precluded from introducing evidence, arguments or otherwise referencing 

concerning the nature of the crimes for which Plaintiff was convicted, the length and conditions of his 

sentence, and is precluded from introducing the abstract of judgment from San Bernardino County 

Superior Court Case No. FSB0312 into evidence; and

5. Defendants’ motion in limine #5 to allow teleconference testimony of the custodian of 

records or authentication by written declaration is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

Defendants’ request to allow testimony via videoconference is DENIED, but Defendants’ request to 

allow authentication of the documents by written declaration is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 10 of 10