Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01833/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01833-10/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

04cv1833

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO VERA JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SAMBRANO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv1833-L(PCL)

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

The parties’ motions in limine came on for a hearing on July 29, 2009 on the 10:00 a.m.

calendar. Roger A. Denning, Esq., Olga May, Esq. and Kimberly I. Kennedy, Esq. appeared on

behalf of Plaintiff. Terrence F. Sheehy, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

For the reasons stated on the record and as supplemented herein, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff filed a motion to admit transcripts of prior trial testimony of unavailable

witnesses Edward Valenciano and Isidro Roman (doc. no. 283). Defendants filed a motion to

exclude the same testimony (doc. no. 292). Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and Defendants’

motion is DENIED with respect to Mr. Valenciano’s transcript. With respect to Mr. Roman’s

transcript, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewing the motion if

necessary. Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to request an order for a writ of habeas corpus ad

/ / / / /

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 342 Filed 07/31/09 Page 1 of 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

2 04cv1833

testificandum and subpoena Mr. Roman to testify at trial. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as

to Mr. Roman’s transcript subject to revisiting the issue if necessary.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendants’ use-of-force review reports (doc. no.

284) is GRANTED.

3. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence regarding cell extraction procedures (doc.

no. 294) is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s intoxication, cell door

malfunction and the 2005 report of Medical Technical Assistant Odom (doc. no. 281) is

DENIED. The denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewing the objections at trial.

5. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s corneal graft rejection (doc.

no. 287) is DENIED.

6. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of other instances of Defendants’ use of

force against inmates (doc. no. 290) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewing the

objection at trial.

7. Plaintiff’s motion to allow inmate witnesses to appear in civilian clothing, exclude

Plaintiff’s and Fred Montoya’s robbery convictions and to preclude Defendants’ counsel from

referring to Plaintiff and his inmate witnesses as “convicted felons” (doc. no. 286) is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

(A) Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Mr. Montoya’s robbery conviction is

DENIED.

(B) Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s robbery conviction is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s other convictions have been excluded pursuant to the August 22, 2008 order on

motions in limine.

(C) Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Defendants’ counsel from referring to

Plaintiff and inmate witnesses as “convicted felons” is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

IN PART. Defendants’ counsel shall not refer to Plaintiff and inmate witnesses as “convicted

felons” so as to arouse bias in the jury. Defense counsel may use this term only when this is

/ / / / /

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 342 Filed 07/31/09 Page 2 of 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

3 04cv1833

unavoidably called for by the context; otherwise he shall refer to Plaintiff and the inmate

witnesses by their names.

(D) Plaintiff’s motion to allow Plaintiff and inmate witnesses to appear in

civilian clothing is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted as

to Plaintiff and Mr. Montoya. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Javier

Tinajero. Plaintiff may renew his motion shortly before Mr. Tinajero is scheduled to testify and

after he arrives to court.

8. Defendants’ motion to have all inmates, including Plaintiff, shackled at trial (doc.

no. 288) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated on the record and at the

August 22, 2008 motions in limine hearing. Defendants may renew the motion shortly before

the commencement of trial but only if there are any new developments potentially affecting

security.

9. Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s physical exhibits (Defendant

Sambrano’s CDC jumpsuit with bloodstains, his state-issue stab-proof vest, his T-shirt with

Plaintiff’s blood, officer’s hand-held radio with personal alarm, handcuffs, 12-oz. bottle of

pepper spray, a side-handle baton which was used in the incident, officer’s belt with holsters, a

set of keys belonging to the institution and a pair of boots appropriate for a correctional officer)

(doc. no. 291) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The evidence is

inadmissible for purposes of a re-enactment but is admissible to show to the jury. The baton and

empty pepper spray cans are conditionally admitted only if Plaintiff provides for proper security

of these items while in the courtroom. Plaintiff may make appropriate arrangements with the

San Diego County Sheriff or the United States Marshal for this purpose.

10. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures (doc.

no. 293) is DENIED as moot because Plaintiff does not intend to introduce such evidence.

11. Plaintiff’s motion to allow references to Plaintiff’s pro bono representation and

lack of funds for an expert (doc. no. 285) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

The court will include these facts in its opening remarks during voir dire. The parties are

/ / / / /

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 342 Filed 07/31/09 Page 3 of 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

4 04cv1833

encouraged to address this issue in their joint proposed description of the case to be read to the

jury.

12. Defendants’ motion to exclude references to a “code of silence” among

correctional officers and a “green wall” (doc. no. 289) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

IN PART. Plaintiff’s counsel may use these terms only after proper foundation has been

presented. Accordingly, these terms shall not be used in Plaintiff’s opening statement. In

addition, Plaintiff’s counsel may not use these terms so as to arouse bias in the jury.

13. Defendants’ motion to bifurcate trial (doc. no. 295) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 30, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. PETER C. LEWIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 342 Filed 07/31/09 Page 4 of 4