Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450-44/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

C. MEDINA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK 

ORDER 

On September 27, 2024, Defendants filed seven Motions in Limine asking the 

Court to preemptively limit evidence at the October 7, 2024, trial. (ECF No. 253.) At 

the final status conference on October 3, 2024, the Court issued rulings on 

Defendants’ second through seventh Motions in Limine, but reserved final ruling on 

Defendants’ first Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of: (1) Plaintiff’s dismissed 

claims against Defendant Kuerston; (2) Plaintiff’s dismissed claims against Defendants 

Medina and Chavez, namely a retaliation claim, an excessive force claim alleging 

Defendants improperly handcuffed Plaintiff behind his back rather than using waistchains, and an excessive force claim alleging Defendants “chicken-winged” Plaintiff; 

and (3) the date of the incident being June 27, 2017. (Id. at 2–4; ECF No. 262.) 

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 266 Filed 10/04/24 Page 1 of 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 

 

 

2 

 Having considered the Parties’ briefings and argument, the Court will grant 

Plaintiff’s first Motion in Limine in part and deny it in part. First, the Court will exclude 

any evidence relating to Plaintiff’s prior claims against Defendant Kuerston, as those 

claims have been dismissed and are not relevant to the remaining excessive force 

claim against Defendants Medina and Chavez. (See ECF Nos. 20–23.) 

 Second, the Court will exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s dismissed claims against 

Defendants Medina and Chavez, particularly claims concerning the manner in which 

Plaintiff was handcuffed (i.e., whether Defendants should have used waist-restraints or 

a daisy-chain), and that Plaintiff was “chicken-winged,” as the Court previously entered 

summary judgment for Defendants on those claims. (See ECF No. 77 at 19–20 (“[T]he 

undersigned finds that defendants did not use excessive force when they handcuffed 

plaintiff behind the back.”); id. at 23 (“The undisputed facts, set forth above, 

demonstrate that defendants did not chicken-wing plaintiff when they applied the 

handcuffs.”); ECF No. 78.) Defendants acknowledge, and the Court agrees, that 

Plaintiff is permitted to testify to the sequence of events during the incident in 

question. However, Plaintiff’s counsel is precluded from introducing additional 

evidence or argument about the manner in which Plaintiff was handcuffed or that 

Plaintiff was “chicken-winged.” 

Finally, the Court denies Defendants’ request to exclude evidence that the 

incident occurred on June 27, 2017. Whether the incident occurred on June 27, 

2017, or June 28, 2017, is a factual question for the jury to decide. 

CONCLUSION 

 In accordance with the above, it is hereby ORDERED Defendants’ first Motion in 

Limine (ECF No. 253) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

Dated: October 4, 2024 

 THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 266 Filed 10/04/24 Page 2 of 2