Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05434/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05434-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TION ALONZO HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSHUA ARNOLD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-05434-TEH 

ORDER BIFURCATING ISSUES AT

TRIAL

The Court has considered the parties’ arguments regarding Plaintiff’s First Motion 

in Limine (Docket Nos. 149, 163). The Court is concerned that evidence of Plaintiff’s 

criminal history will be highly prejudicial to Plaintiff’s case. However, such evidence is 

also relevant to whether Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries (an element 

of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim), as well as the extent of any such harm to be 

considered in a damages calculation. Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instructions at 3 (Docket 

No. 128); Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions at 2 (Docket No. 130). Indeed, 

Plaintiff’s own damages expert testified that the death of Plaintiff’s girlfriend, for which 

Plaintiff was convicted of murder and attempted arson, is a “secondary cause” of his PTSD 

symptoms. Ex. N to Oldfather Decl. at 3 (Docket No. 167-14). 

“[T]o avoid prejudice . . . the court may order a separate trial of one or more 

separate issues . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). In order to avoid prejudice against Plaintiff, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s trial shall be bifurcated into the following two 

phases: first, the parties shall try the first two elements of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment claim, that is, whether Defendants used excessive force against Plaintiff with 

the intent to cause him harm, and related defenses. Second, if the jury returns a verdict for 

Plaintiff on the first two elements, the parties shall try the third element of the Fourteenth 

Amendment claim, whether the acts of Defendants caused harm to Plaintiff, as well as the 

extent of Plaintiff’s damages. 

Case 3:09-cv-05434-TEH Document 196 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Although it will not eliminate the risk of prejudice completely, the Court finds that 

separate phases of trial on these issues will reduce the risk of prejudice to Plaintiff from the 

jury considering the evidence for those elements for which it is not relevant, while 

permitting consideration of the evidence where it is relevant.

This Order is not an order on Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine. Nor does the 

language above constitute an order on the parties’ proposed jury instructions on the 

Fourteenth Amendment claim. Rather, the language merely outlines the two phases of 

trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/03/2015 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05434-TEH Document 196 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2