Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00768-45/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

LAKEITH LEROY MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HOLGUIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK (PC)

TENTATIVE AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL 

ORDER

Deadlines:

Objections to Pretrial Order: December 27, 

2024

Motion in Limine Filing: January 14, 2025

Oppositions: January 28, 2025

Exhibits due to Court: February 18, 2025

Proposed Jury Instructions, Verdict Form, and 

Voir Dire: February 11, 2025

Objections: February 18, 2025

Trial Confirmation Hearing: February 18, 

2025, at 3:00 p.m. Courtroom 6

Jury Trial: February 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.

Courtroom 6

On December 9, 2024, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference in this action. 

Plaintiff Lakeith McCoy appeared pro se via Zoom; Jeremy Duggan appeared via Zoom as 

counsel for Defendants G. Arellano, E. Barron, Hollis Bennett, C. Casillas, O. Delgado, J. 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 39
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

Gonzales, A. Holguin, D. King, S. Lomas, A. Martinez, C. Martinez, Mayfield, Montanez, V. 

Moore, and Moreno. This matter is set for a jury trial on February 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in 

Courtroom 6 before District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. Having considered the parties’ pretrial 

statements and views, the Court issues this tentative amended final pretrial order.

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants. This action is set for trial 

on Plaintiff’s claims for Eighth Amendment excessive use of force against Defendants Barron, 

Casillas, Delgado, Gonzales, Holguin, King, Lomas, A. Martinez, Mayfield, Montanez, Moore, 

and Moreno, and for Eighth Amendment failure to protect against Defendants Arellano, Bennett, 

and C. Martinez. Doc. 233 at 1–2.

I. JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Jurisdiction is not contested. The 

events at issue took place in Kern County, California. Accordingly, venue is proper pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue is also not contested.

II. JURY

Plaintiff and Defendants demand a jury trial. The jury will consist of eight jurors.

III. UNDISPUTED FACTS

1. Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated by the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 

2. Defendants are employees of CDCR and were acting within the scope of their 

employment during the events alleged by Plaintiff. 

3. The events in dispute occurred on March 12, 2015. 

IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

1. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendants Casillas, Holguin, Moore, and King 

attacked Plaintiff during a handcuffed transport.

2. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendants Gonzales and A. Martinez dragged 

Plaintiff to a holding cell and used force against him, causing a concussion, and 

pinning him to the ground.

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 39
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

3. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendants Delgado, Barron, Montanez, Mayfield 

and Moreno punched Plaintiff, and whether Defendant A. Martinez kicked 

Plaintiff. 

4. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendant Lomas grabbed Plaintiff’s leg, twisting 

it and bending it backwards. 

5. Whether, as Plaintiff contends, Defendants C. Martinez, Arellano, and Bennett 

failed to intervene and protect Plaintiff. 

6. Whether, as Defendants contend, Plaintiff broke free from Defendant Casillas’s 

grasp during a transport and attacked Defendant Holguin. 

7. Whether, as Defendants contend, Plaintiff again attacked officers after being 

initially restrained. 

8. Whether, as Defendants contend, correctional officers discovered two razor blades 

in Plaintiff’s waistband. 

9. Whether, as Defendants contend, Plaintiff received prison disciplinary violations 

for, and was criminally prosecuted for, attacking an officer and possession of a 

weapon. 

10. Whether the incident reports and prison disciplinary reports regarding the 

March 12, 2015, events are based on false statements by Defendants. 

Plaintiff identifies the following disputed factual issues1:

1. Leading up to the incident that gave rise to this action, Plaintiff did write the 

warden of the prison where he was housed at a grievance alerting her that the 

building staff, Defendants in this action, were not allowing prisoners to exchange 

dirty laundry for clean laundry, were not allowing prisoners to use the hair clippers 

to groom, were not giving prisoners the opportunity to shower, and were not 

providing “Inmate Request Forms” so that prisoners could address these or any 

other issues at the lowest level. The grievance was then forwarded to Lieutenant 

1

 Plaintiff characterizes issues numbered 1 through 16 below as undisputed facts (Doc. 243 at 2–

6); however, Defendants dispute all of Plaintiff’s assertions (Doc. 241 at 2).

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 39
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

D. Calvillo who did before addressing the issue with Plaintiff, notify subordinate 

staff that Plaintiff had filed a Complaint against them.

2. On February 28, 2015, Lieutenant Calvillo called Plaintiff out of his cell to Dining 

Hall #3 to be interviewed regarding the grievance Plaintiff wrote to the warden. 

Plaintiff explained to Lt. Calvillo that he was being harassed because of the 

grievance; no action was taken.

3. On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff was handcuffed by Defendant Casillas and escorted 

back to the unit by Defendants Holguin and Casillas.

4. On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff was scheduled to attend the facility’s law library. 

After breakfast, Defendant Casillas placed Plaintiff in handcuffs and led him down 

the stairs out of the section and into the hallway. There were no inmates around. 

Staff were not threatened in any way.

5. Defendants King, Casillas, and Holguin admitted through their signed incident 

reports that they were in the hallway.

6. Plaintiff was struck by a baton and pepper sprayed by Defendants. Plaintiff ended 

up outside the building, Facility 4A Building 6. Defendant Holguin did use his 

baton and paper spray on Plaintiff; a handcuffed prisoner. While Plaintiff was 

outside, someone sounded the alarm. Plaintiff was hit full force on his back right 

arm and left thigh by Defendant Holguin. Defendant Holguin unleashed an entire 

can of pepper spray in Plaintiff’s eyes and ears at close proximity. The force used 

was unbearable.

7. At no time did Defendants Holland, Kilmer, S. Lomas, or Santa Maria intervene to 

stop Defendants Moore, King, Holguin, and Casillas.2 Plaintiff was hit in his jaw. 

At the time of the assault, Plaintiff weighed approximately 158 pounds; 155 to be 

exact.

8. Defendants Hollis Bennett and Rachel DeLuna arrived with all medical 

2 Defendants Holland, Kilmer, and Santa Maria were dismissed from the action on March 26, 

2018. Doc. 96.

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 4 of 39
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

equipment.3 Defendants J. Gonzales and A. Martinez took Plaintiff by the arm 

while he was handcuffed and pulled his arms above his head. He was taken to 

Dining Hall #4, which was approximately 10–15 yards away. Defendants G. 

Arellano and C. Martinez’s office is located in Dining Hall #4. The method of 

pulling a prisoner’s arms above his or her head while they are handcuffed is 

widely known as a “chicken wing” and if effectively applied will break the 

recipient’s arms.

9. The cell door to place Plaintiff in the holding cell was opened. Before placing 

Plaintiff in the holding cell, there was force used by Defendants Gonzales and 

Martinez. Plaintiff suffered a concussion because of the force that was used. 

Plaintiff was pulled out of the holding cell and thrown to the ground. Plaintiff was 

pinned to the ground by at least one Defendant. After this incident occurred, 

Plaintiff was placed in the holding cell. While being pinned to the ground, 

Plaintiff was scarcely able to breath.

10. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff had a swollen and bruised ankle with cuts to 

the ankle, cuts and numbness to both wrists, swollen left knee along with cuts to 

the sides of both knees, redness, swelling, and an abrasion to the left thigh, injury 

to his left side of his back, lacerations to the left side of his head, concussion, 

swollen right jaw, bruising to the back of the right arm, Plaintiff was blinded by 

the pepper spray which lasted approximately three weeks, requiring Plaintiff to be 

treated by an eye doctor outside the prison. Plaintiff suffered from swelling and 

pain to the back of his head. Numerous teeth have been chipped. Plaintiff had an 

ear lavage to remove the pepper spray that was in his ears.

11. Plaintiff suffers from knee pain in his left leg, muscle strains, herniated back disc, 

ringing and diminished hearing in his ears, inflammation in both eyes which had to 

be treated with steroid eye drops, head trauma, unaligned jaw, and chronic dry 

3

 Rachel DeLuna was dismissed from the action on March 26, 2018. Doc. 96.

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 5 of 39
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

eyes. All injuries were documented via photos, digital camera, digital interview, 

and medical reports.

12. Defendants filed an incident report beyond time constraints and in violation of 

policy and procedure. Most of the Defendants previously named have failed to file 

a report to date.

13. There was never an adequate, available administrative remedy to redress these 

types of misconduct by staff throughout the prison. The remedies are 

discretionary; however, Plaintiff was able to send the grievance to outside sources 

and or agencies.

14. Plaintiff’s Rules Violation Report (CDC 115) was heard by Lt. D. Calvillo, but 

contrary to policy, no final copy was ever provided to Plaintiff, thus prohibiting 

him from knowing the findings and appealing the decision. The matter was 

alleged to have been sent to the office of Internal Affairs.

15. Defendant Holguin received a broken hand the day of the incident consistent with 

what’s called a “boxing fracture”.

16. In Holt v. Nichols, 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-SAB (PC), Defendant Holguin admitted 

under penalty of perjury that, during his employment with C.D.C.R., he used O.C. 

pepper spray, and observed correctional staff use O.C. pepper spray on inmates. 

On each occasion where they have used O.C. pepper spray, or observed 

correctional staff use O.C. pepper spray on an inmate, the inmate had trouble 

seeing, opening his eyes, and breathing. He experienced a burning sensation in his 

eyes, and he was disoriented; but within approximately forty-five minutes, all of 

the inmates’ symptoms resolved.

17. While returning from Court on February 26, 2015, Plaintiff was questioned about 

the grievance by Defendants C. Casillas and D. King. Plaintiff was told he should 

not have under any circumstance went over their heads and wrote the warden 

about their failure to carry out their duties; at which time Plaintiff explained he 

didn’t want any problems and informed them that he wouldn’t write any more 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 6 of 39
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

7

grievances.

18. On February 28, 2015, Plaintiff explained to Lt. D. Cavillo that staff had been 

tipped off about the grievance he wrote to the warden.

19. Defendants C. Casillas, D. King, and V. Moore waited on Defendant A. Holguin to 

return to work so they could formulate a plan to “punish” Plaintiff for exercising 

his right to file a grievance. Upon returning to work Defendant Holguin did 

willfully become an active participant and conspirator.

20. While coming through the Release and Return unit of the prison from Court on 

March 5, 2015, Plaintiff noticed that Defendants Holguin and Casillas were 

standing at the desk conversing with correctional officer Barbosa, coincidentally. 

Defendant Holguin then stated, “here comes Deputy LaKeith,” referring to 

Plaintiff in response to writing the grievance. After being placed in the holding 

cell by transport staff, Defendant Casillas handcuffed Plaintiff and as they were 

walking by the Release and Return desk, correctional officer Barbosa stated, 

“hurry up and get back to the housing unit so McCoy can write those complaints!” 

At that time, Defendant Holguin began looking at Plaintiff and making rude 

comments. Plaintiff told Defendant Holguin to not play with him and stop talking 

to him.

21. Upon arriving back at the housing unit, Plaintiff’s cell had been searched and left 

in disarray. Plaintiff respectfully asked Defendant Casillas, after being placed in 

the cell and uncuffed, who had searched the cell. At that point Defendant Casillas 

became hostile and stated, “nobody searched your fucking cell, you little bitch!” 

He then slammed the tray slot and stated, “you’re a fucking cell soldier, you’re 

going to get yours!” Plaintiff yelled out the door at Defendant Casillas, “you’re a 

bitch!”

22. While escorting Plaintiff to the law library on March 12, 2015, Defendant Casillas 

had a tight grip on Plaintiff’s arm, was breathing very hard, and let Plaintiff to the 

hallway in a hostile manner as was consistent with his character which was 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 7 of 39
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

8

evidenced from previous encounters. There was no encounter besides the 

grievance issues and the shouting match between Plaintiff and Defendant Casillas 

that led to the complained of assault. Staff was in no danger or threatened in any 

way whatsoever. The beating was solely the result of the grievance and the 

shouting which does not, under any laws of the United States, constitute sufficient 

provocation. Immediately upon entering the hallway, Plaintiff saw Defendants V. 

Moore, A. Holguin, and D. King standing in the hallway outside of their office 

door. Defendant Casillas asked Plaintiff, “what’s up now motherfucker,” and 

aggressively threw Plaintiff into the wall in the hallway while he was defenseless 

and handcuffed.

23. At that time, Defendants Holguin and Casillas began punching Plaintiff, full force, 

in the back of the head full force with closed fists. Defendant Holguin asked 

Plaintiff, “who’s the bitch now?” All the while, Holguin and Casillas continued to 

punch Plaintiff in the back of the head in cowardly fashion. Defendants Moore 

and King did unlawfully join Defendants Casillas and Holguin in brutally beating 

Plaintiff while he was defenseless and handcuffed. Plaintiff was continually and 

repeatedly beat by this gang of correctional officers in such a cowardly fashion 

while his back was turned. Plaintiff was punched numerous times in the back and 

in the back of the head. On a few occasions, with malicious and evil intent, 

defendants did strike Plaintiff with their batons.

24. The beating was so brutal, Plaintiff was beat toward the exit door, subsequently 

ending up outside. As a result, in a panic, someone sounded the alarm. 

Defendants Holland, Kilmer, S. Lomas, and Santa Maria came out of housing unit 

5 which was next door and watched the beating. They did nothing to intervene. 

There exists at the prison a strict code of silence which prohibits them from 

intervening.

25. Plaintiff could not say or do anything. He was knocked nearly unconscious and 

could not conjure up enough strength or energy to open his mouth to talk. These 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 8 of 39
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

9

acts were torturous. Plaintiff was hit in his jaw on what felt like the back right side 

which left him nearly incapacitated and forced Plaintiff’s eyes to roll into the back 

of his head. Defendant Holguin unleased an entire can of pepper spray on 

Plaintiff.

26. No orders were issued for Plaintiff to get down or prone out. This was a gang 

beating by rogue, properly supervised, correctional officers. Defendants Holland, 

Kilmer, S. Lomas, Santa Maria did nothing more than watch. As Plaintiff proned 

out on the ground, Defendant S. Lomas ran from behind Plaintiff, grabbed 

Plaintiff’s leg, and began twisting, contorting, and bending Plaintiff’s leg in an 

attempt to break it. Plaintiff could see Defendant Lomas in his peripheral vision. 

He then backed up and congregated with all the other Defendants and started 

watching Plaintiff lay there in extreme pain while he was proned out.

27. Defendants J. Gonzales and A. Martinez grabbed Plaintiff by his hands and the 

middle of the handcuffs in an attempt to raise Plaintiff’s arms above his head while 

being handcuffed from the back. They led Plaintiff to Dining Hall #4 

approximately 10–15 yards away at a gruelingly fast pace. Defendants DeLuna 

and Bennett were in tow and watching this scene play out while laughing about the 

situation. Upon arriving in Dining Hall #4, there were numerous correctional 

officers congregating including Defendants G. Arellano and C. Martinez who had 

walked out of their office which is located in Dining Hall #4.

28. Defendant Gonzales told Defendant A. Martinez, “hold on,” before putting 

Plaintiff into the holding cell. He then grabbed Plaintiff viciously by the back of 

the neck and shoved Plaintiff into the holding cell forcing Plaintiff to hit his head 

on the back of the cell. He was pulled out and this was repeated a second time by 

the same Defendant Gonzales. Defendants Bennett and DeLuna willfully stood by 

watching and observing this conduct while standing in Dining Hall #4, as well as 

Defendants G. Arellano and C. Martinez.

29. After being thrown to the back of the cell and sustaining a head injury, Plaintiff 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 9 of 39
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

10

was pulled out a final time and thrown to the ground. Defendants C. Martinez and 

G. Arellano were standing in front of Plaintiff allowing these actions to be carried 

out. Plaintiff was then sat on by O. Delgado, E. Barron, Montanez, Mayfield, and 

Moreno who all began committing further atrocious acts of punching Plaintiff 

wherever they could find unprotected body parts while he was on the ground. 

Defendant A. Martinez, maliciously, sadistically with evil intent kicked Plaintiff in 

the ribs.

30. Plaintiff cried out, “I didn’t do anything.” Eventually Defendant G. Arellano told 

Plaintiff, “if WE let you up, will you be cool and not try to retaliate?” Upon 

information and belief, this was said in a manner as to empower himself while at 

the same time assure that Plaintiff would be quiet about the situation. Plaintiff 

assured him that he wouldn’t do anything, and by stating he wouldn’t do anything, 

Plaintiff was under the impression that they wanted him to be completely silent 

about the attack.

31. When Plaintiff was eventually taken to the facility clinic, Defendant Bennett did 

wait approximately 30 minutes to an hour to see Plaintiff and when she finally did 

see him, she came into the room and stated, “I’m not worried about no inmate; 

only custody,” meaning correctional staff.

32. The prison medical staff made jokes to the effect of, “you sure are doing good to 

have been beat up by correctional officers” and “if your teeth are bothering you 

that much, then you should just have them removed!” Subsequently, Defendants 

filed a false report stating that Plaintiff tried to run toward Defendant Holguin 

while he was handcuffed.4

///

///

///

4

 Plaintiff also notes in a footnote: “Plaintiff was criminally charged and faced a potential life 

sentence. In March 2021, all charges were dismissed after five years.” Doc. 243 at 10–11, ¶ 1.

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 10 of 39
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

11

Defendants identify the following disputed factual issues:

1. Defendants dispute all of Plaintiff’s allegations in his pre-trial statements.

2. Defendants contend that during an escort on March 12, 2015, Plaintiff broke away 

from Defendant Casillas’s grasp, and charged Defendant Holguin, attacking him 

and injuring him. Officers were required to use reasonable force to bring Plaintiff 

under control.

3. After Plaintiff was restrained, officers attempted to put Plaintiff into a holding cell. 

Plaintiff again attacked officers. Officers again restrained Plaintiff, but discovered 

two razor blades in his waistband.

4. Plaintiff received disciplinary violations for attacking an officer and possession of 

a weapon.

V. DISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES

None listed.

VI. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

Defendants identify the following as disputed evidentiary issues:

1. Defendants do not anticipate disputes concerning admissibility of live or 

deposition testimony, physical or demonstrative evidence, or the use of special 

technology at trial, including computer animation, video discs, or other high 

technology.

Plaintiff identifies the following as disputed evidentiary issues:

1. After Discovery had closed, after the criminal case had been concluded, after 

many Motions To Compel Discovery, Defendants produced expert opinions which 

revealed they withheld Discovery in this matter and the criminal matter. The 

expert relied on reports written by a Lieutenant, a Captain, and Associate Warden 

who all concluded in their final analysis that these Defendants violated policies 

before, during, and after the incident. Plaintiff disputes the findings of the expert.

2. Plaintiff disputes the honesty of the incident reports written at the prison on the 

day of the incident.

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 11 of 39
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

12

3. Plaintiff disputes Defendants reports that he kept tried to get off the ground by 

transitioning to his knees. Plaintiff, since the year of 2011, has had a torn 

meniscus and injury to his patella tendon. It is impossible for Plaintiff to perform 

these types of maneuvers with said injury.

VII. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in advance of the trial that certain 

evidence should not be offered at trial. The Court will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar 

use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is 

not admissible for any valid purpose. Id. 

In advance of filing any motion in limine, the parties shall meet and confer to determine 

whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine.

Any motions in limine the parties intend to file must be filed with the Court no later than

January 14, 2025. The motion must clearly identify the nature of the evidence that the moving 

party seeks to prohibit the other side from offering at trial. Any opposition to the motion must be 

served on the other party and filed with the Court no later than January 28, 2025. After

reviewing the motions and any opposition briefs, the Court will notify the parties if a reply brief 

is necessary. As such, parties shall not file any reply briefs without Court approval. The Court 

will also notify the parties if it will hear argument on any motions in limine prior to the first day 

of trial. The parties are reminded they may still object to the introduction of evidence during trial.

VIII. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 281(b)(6) Defendants provide the following information pertinent 

to tort and personal injury actions: 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used excessive force or failed to 

protect him from other Defendants on March 12, 2015. Plaintiff 

alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendants 

contend the force used was necessary.

Defendants are informed and believe that Plaintiff is thirty-nine 

years old. Defendants deny Plaintiff suffered any significant 

injuries, other than exposure to O.C. Spray. Plaintiff did not incur 

any medical expenses, did not suffer any disability, did not have 

any earnings before the incident, and did not suffer any earnings 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 12 of 39
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

13

loss after the incident.

Doc. 241 at 2–3.

IX. RELIEF SOUGHT

1. Plaintiff seeks $1.5 million in compensatory damages from each Defendant

“jointly and severally,” and $3 million in punitive damages against each Defendant 

“jointly and severally.” Doc. 243 at 11.

2. Defendants seek judgment in their favor and an award of costs.

X. POINTS OF LAW

The claims and defenses arise under federal law. 

1. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim of excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

2. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim of failure to protect 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

3. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof for an award of punitive 

damages.

4. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof for the affirmative defense of 

qualified immunity.

Plaintiff identifies the following points of law:

1. Plaintiff does not anticipate there will be controversy in regards to any points of 

law. The legal theory this action proceeds on is an Eighth Amendment violation 

for cruel and unusual punishment for use of excessive force as well as Defendants 

failure to intervene in the use of excessive force.

Defendants identify the following points of law:

1. Excessive Force 

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation 

of the [Eighth Amendment], the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a goodfaith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 13 of 39
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

14

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 

(1986). Prison officials may also be liable if they had the opportunity to intervene to stop 

excessive force by other officers and failed to do so. Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1290 

(9th Cir. 2000).

2. Causation

In assessing the imposition of liability under § 1983, we must first ask “(1) whether the 

conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under the color of state law; and (2) 

whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States.” Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on 

other grounds, Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). There are two aspects to the second 

inquiry: “(1) there must have been a deprivation of federally protected rights, privileges or 

immunities, and (2) the conduct complained of must have been causally connected to the 

deprivation.” Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553, 559 (1st Cir. 1989), citing Woodley v. 

Town of Nantucket, 645 F. Supp. 1365, 1369 n. 4 (D. Mass. 1986) (emphasis added). Section 1983 

thus focuses the inquiry on whether an official's acts or omissions were the cause—not merely a 

contributing factor—of the constitutionally infirm condition. LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 

1538 (11th Cir. 1993). To be entitled to judgment on a failure to protect claim under the Eighth 

Amendment, a plaintiff must show a causal relationship between his or her injury and the deliberate 

actions of the defendant prison official. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). The issue 

of causation must be resolved by an individualized inquiry into each defendant’s duties, discretion, 

and ability to avert the threatened harm. Id. at 633–34. Plaintiff must prove: (1) that the specific 

prison official, in acting or failing to act, was deliberately indifferent to the mandates of the Eighth 

Amendment, and (2) that this indifference was the actual and proximate cause of the deprivation of 

the inmate's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Id. (emphasis 

added.) 

Plaintiff must show that there exists a direct causal connection, Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 

378, 387–388 (1989), without intervening factors, between the deprivation and some injury to 

plaintiff. Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1984).

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 14 of 39
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

15

3. Admissibility of Felony Convictions

For the purpose of attacking the character for truthfulness of a witness, evidence that a 

witness has been convicted of a crime that was punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year 

shall be admitted subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1); see e.g., 

Untied States v. Murray, 751 F.2d 1528, 1533 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that trial court properly 

determined that probative value of seventeen-year old conviction outweighed its prejudicial effect 

when needed to resolve significant conflict between defendant and the government’s chief 

witness).

The presumption under Rule 609(a) is that the term “evidence” encompasses the essential 

facts of the conviction, including the statutory name of each offense, the date of conviction, and 

the sentence imposed. United States v. Estrada, 430 F.3d 606, 615-16 (2d Cir. 2005); United 

States v. Osazuwa, 564 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that impeachment with prior 

convictions is generally limited to the crime charged, the date, and the disposition); see also, 4 

Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.20[2] at 609-57 

(2d ed. 2005) (“When a prior conviction is admissible for impeachment, the impeaching party is 

generally limited to establishing that bare facts of the conviction; usually the name of the offense, 

the date of the conviction, and the sentence.”).

4. Qualified Immunity

Government officials are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct 

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 

would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The purpose of the rule is to 

permit officials to undertake their responsibilities without fear that they will be held liable in damages 

for actions that appear reasonable at the time, but are later held to violate statutory or constitutional 

rights. Id. at 819. “The concern of the immunity inquiry is to acknowledge that reasonable mistakes 

can be made” and that it is “often difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant legal doctrine 

will apply to the factual situation that he faces.” Estate of Ford v. Ramirez Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 

1049 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 205 (2001)). Thus, “regardless of whether 

the constitutional violation occurred, the [official] should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 15 of 39
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

16

was not ‘clearly established’ or the [official] could have reasonably believed that his particular 

conduct was lawful.” Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991). 

In Saucier, the Supreme Court set forth a two-part inquiry to determine whether the immunity 

exits. The initial inquiry, or first prong, is whether “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party 

asserting the injury, . . . the facts alleged show that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional 

right.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. If, and only if, a violation can be made out, the next step, or second 

prong, is to ask whether the “right was clearly established.” Id. If the right was clearly established at

the time of the alleged incident, the court must then determine whether, “under that law, could a 

reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful” Id. at 202; Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 

895, 910 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Browning v. Vernon, 44 F.3d 818, 822 (9th Cir. 1995)). Qualified 

immunity “gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments,” 

and “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Ashcroft v. alKidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

“The linchpin of qualified immunity is the reasonableness of the official’s conduct.” 

Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 654 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011). Reasonableness is judged against 

the backdrop of law at the time of the conduct at issue. Brouseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 

(2004); Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999). Thus, the reasonableness inquiry must be 

undertaken in light of the specific context of the case and not as a general, broad proposition. Saucier, 

533 U.S. at 202; Kennedy v. Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2006). Qualified immunity 

allows ample room for mistaken judgments—regardless of whether the government official’s error is 

“a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact”—and 

applies even when wrongful conduct occurs. Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 403 (1997); 

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). The court has the discretion, based on the 

circumstances of the particular case at hand, to decide whether the two-part inquiry is worthwhile or if 

a determination can be made by analyzing a single prong of the immunity inquiry. Pearson at 236.

5. Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are available in a § 1983 action only when a defendant’s conduct is 

shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 16 of 39
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

17

indifference to the federally protected rights of others. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 51 (1983). A 

finding that a defendant is not protected by qualified immunity does not automatically mean that 

punitive damages should be awarded. Hernandez-Tirado v. Artau, 874 F.2d 866, 870 (1st Cir. 

1989). Nor is it enough that a defendant may have acted in an objectively unreasonable manner; 

his subjective state of mind must be assessed. Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th 

Cir. 1989). Where there is no evidence that a defendant acted with evil intent, there is no legal 

right to punitive damages. Ward v. City of San Jose, 967 F.2d 280, 286 (9th Cir. 1991). The 

plaintiff alleging a § 1983 claim has the burden of proving that punitive damages should be

awarded by a preponderance of the evidence. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 

Model Civ. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 7.5 (2004)).

ANY CAUSES OF ACTION NOT LISTED IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER UNDER 

POINTS OF LAW ARE DISMISSED AND DEEMED WAIVED. 

XI. ABANDONED ISSUES

None.

XII. WITNESSES

Plaintiff’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A.

5 Defendants’ witnesses shall 

be those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other. 

Plaintiff timely moved for the appearance of witness Joshua Howard (Doc. 238), and the Court 

granted Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 240). Plaintiff additionally indicated in his motion that Mr. 

Howard prefers to testify remotely. Doc. 238 at 5. After discussion with the parties, the Court 

denies this request without prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure at this time to show good cause.

The assigned magistrate judge set deadlines and fees for the attendance of Plaintiff’s remaining 

non-incarcerated witnesses, and those fees are due December 23, 2024. Doc. 240. The assigned 

magistrate judge will issue an order addressing the status of Plaintiff’s witnesses once that 

deadline passes.

///

5

 Plaintiff separately filed his list of proposed witnesses. Doc. 239.

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 17 of 39
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

18

The Court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose, 

including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:

1. The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose of 

rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial 

conference; or

2. The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering party 

makes the showing required in paragraph 3, below.

3. Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, 

the party shall promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of the existence of 

the unlisted witness so the Court may consider whether said witness shall be 

permitted to testify at trial. The witness will not be permitted unless:

a. The witness could not have reasonably been discovered prior to the 

discovery cutoff;

b. The Court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of 

the witness; 

c. If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and

d. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony 

was provided to opposing parties.

XIII. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND SUMMARIES

Plaintiff’s exhibits are listed in Attachment C. Defendants’ exhibits are listed in 

Attachment D. The parties must prepare four (4) separate exhibit binders for use by the Court at 

trial, with a side tab identifying each exhibit in accordance with the following specifications:

1. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “PX” and numbered 

sequentially beginning with 100 (e.g., PX-100, PX-101, etc.). 

2. Defendants’ exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “DX” and numbered 

sequentially beginning with 200 (e.g., DX-200, DX-201, etc.) and shall be 

separated by tabs. 

3. Joint exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “JT” and numbered sequentially 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 18 of 39
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

19

beginning with 1 (e.g., JT-1, JT-2, etc.), and Defendants’ counsel shall submit the 

original and two (2) copies of the joint trial exhibits, with exhibit lists and 

separated by tabs.

4. Exhibits that are multiple pages shall be marked with page numbers in addition to 

the prefix and exhibit number, on each page of the exhibit (e.g., PX-100, page 1 of 

2, PX-100, page 2 of 2, etc.). 

5. Each binder shall have an identification label on the front and spine. 

The parties shall submit their exhibit binders to Courtroom Deputy Victoria 

Gonzales no later than February 18, 2025. 

6. Exchange of Trial Exhibits

The parties shall also serve one (1) copy of all trial exhibits, along with their exhibit list, 

on each other no later than January 21, 2025, and any objections thereto are due no later than 

February 4, 2025. This includes any demonstrative evidence the parties intend to use. 

7. Use of Undisclosed Exhibits

The Court does not allow the use of undisclosed exhibits for any purpose, including

impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:

a. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the 

purpose of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably 

anticipated, or

b. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the 

proffering party makes the showing required in paragraph a, below.

c. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall 

promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of the existence of such 

exhibits by filing a notice on the docket so that the Court may consider 

their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the 

proffering party demonstrates:

d. The exhibits could not have reasonably been discovered earlier; 

e. The Court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 19 of 39
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

20

existence; and

f. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically 

possible) to the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied, the 

proffering party must show that it has made the exhibits reasonably 

available for inspection.

XIV. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

The following is a list of discovery documents that the parties expect to offer at trial. NO 

DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY 

BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT 

THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(12).

Plaintiff’s Proposed Discovery to be Proffered at Trial6:

1. Plaintiff’s May 18, 2017 deposition.

2. Interrogatories of Defendant Montanez (June 21, 2017).

3. Interrogatories of Defendant G. Arellano (June 27, 2017).

4. Interrogatories of Defendant Mayfield (June 25, 2017).

5. Interrogatories of Defendant E. Barron (June 27, 2017).

6. Interrogatories of Santa Maria (June 21, 2017).

7. Interrogatories of DeLuna (June 28, 2017).

8. Interrogatories of Defendant Moreno (June 21, 2017).

9. Interrogatories of defendant S. Lomas (June 26, 2017).

10. Interrogatories of Kilmer.

11. Interrogatories of Holland (June 21, 2017).

12. Interrogatories of defendant O. Delgado (June 28, 2017).

13. Interrogatories of defendant Hollis Bennett (June 7, 2016).

6

 Plaintiff’s final pretrial statement refers to an Appendix B containing his discovery documents, 

but no Appendix B is attached to his pretrial statement. Plaintiff’s discovery documents listed in 

this section were identified the previous final pretrial order. Doc. 137 at 6–7.

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 20 of 39
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

21

14. Interrogatories of defendant V. Moore (June 8, 2016).

15. Interrogatories of defendant C. Martinez (June 27, 2017).

16. Interrogatories of defendant A. Martinez (June 22, 2017).

17. Interrogatories of defendant J. Gonzales (June 20, 2017).

18. Interrogatories of defendant D. King (June 26, 2017).

19. Interrogatories of defendant C. Casillas (June 25, 2017).

20. All interrogatories of defendant A. Holguin.

21. Preliminary hearing transcript, People v. McCoy (2016).

22. Plaintiff’s interrogatories.

23. Deposition of plaintiff (date unknown).

Defendants’ Proposed Discovery to be Proffered at Trial:

1. Defendants indicate in their pretrial statement they intend to introduce excerpts of 

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony at trial. Doc. 241 at 11.

The parties must lodge with the Clerk of Court, no later than February 18, 2025, a copy 

of any deposition transcript to be used at trial.

XV. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

Plaintiff does not indicate in his pretrial statement that he intends to file any additional

motions. Plaintiff seeks as additional discovery the medical records of A. Holguin from 

March 12, 2015. That request will not be granted. Discovery and law and motion are closed in 

this action pursuant to the Court’s previously issued scheduling orders.

Defendants intend to file motions in limine but do not anticipate filing any other pretrial 

motions. Defendants indicate that they may move for judgment as a matter of law under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 50 at the close of Plaintiff’s case in chief and before the case is submitted 

to the jury.

XVI. STIPULATIONS

Defendants are willing to stipulate to the authenticity of Plaintiff’s unaltered records from 

his central and medical files maintained by CDCR and any CDCR record generated and 

maintained in the regular course of business, which may be used as exhibits at trial. Defendants 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 21 of 39
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

22

reserve the right to object to such exhibits on other grounds.

XVII. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS

None.

XVIII. SETTLEMENT

The parties participated in a settlement conference on February 26, 2021, which resulted 

in an impasse. Doc. 142. A settlement conference scheduled for December 15, 2021, was 

cancelled due to Plaintiff’s decision not to participate. Doc. 174. Defendants do not believe that 

further settlement negotiations would be productive or beneficial. Plaintiff believes that further 

settlement negotiations or a settlement conference “would be helpful.” The parties will notify the 

Court if they believe a further settlement conference before a magistrate judge prior to trial would 

be useful.

XIX. JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Court has drafted the following neutral statement of the case to be read to the 

prospective jurors:

Plaintiff alleges that certain Defendants used excessive force 

against him on March 12, 2015, and that other defendants failed to 

protect him from such use of excessive force. Plaintiff alleges 

violations of the Eighth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendants contend the 

force used was necessary.

XX. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

There will be no separate trial of issues in this action. However, the Court will bifurcate 

the trial with respect to the amount of punitive damages, if necessary. Should a jury find punitive 

liability in the first phase of the trial, the trial will proceed to a second phase which will consist of 

any evidence and argument with respect to the appropriate amount of punitive damages. The 

parties may not present evidence regarding the amount of punitive damages until the second 

phase of the trial.

XXI. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS

None. Defendants have retained and disclosed expert witness John Diaz.

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 22 of 39
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

23

XXII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Kay v. Ehrler, 499 

U.S. 432, 435 (1991).

Defendants will seek costs as appropriate, but not attorney’s fees. 

XXIII. TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REDACTION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS

Defendants do not anticipate any special handling of exhibits of trial exhibits pursuant to 

Local Rule 138(e).

Pursuant to the Court’s policy, at the end of the trial the Court will return all exhibits to 

the proffering party to be retained during the pendency of any appeals.

XXIV. MISCELLANEOUS

Plaintiff indicates that he will move for a default against defendant Holguin for failure to 

properly execute his interrogatories. However, any such motion would be untimely as discovery 

and law and motion are closed in this action pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order.

XXV. ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE

Jury trial is set for February 25, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6 before District 

Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. Trial is anticipated to last 10–12 court days.

A trial confirmation hearing is set for February 18, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 6.

XXVI. PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE, JURY INSTRUCTIONS, AND VERDICT 

FORM

1. Proposed Jury Voir Dire

The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire by February 11, 2025. Each party will 

be limited to twenty minutes of jury voir dire, unless they show good cause for additional time.

2. Proposed Jury Instructions and Proposed Verdict Form

a. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer, if possible, to generate a 

joint set of jury instructions and a joint verdict form. The parties shall file 

any such joint set of instructions by February 11, 2025, identified as 

“Joint Proposed Jury Instructions.” The parties shall file any agreed upon 

verdict form as a “Joint Proposed Verdict Form.” If the parties cannot 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 23 of 39
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

24

agree upon certain specific jury instructions and/or the verdict form, 

Defendants shall file proposed jury instructions and a proposed verdict 

form as provided in Local Rule 163 by February 11, 2025. Plaintiff is not 

required to file proposed jury instructions or a proposed verdict form, but if 

he wishes to do so, he must file them by February 11, 2025.

b. The parties shall indicate on any proposed jury instructions or proposed 

verdict form the party submitting the proposed instructions or verdict form 

(i.e., Joint, Plaintiff’s, or Defendants’). 

c. The parties shall also include on all proposed jury instructions the 

following: 

i. The number of the proposed instruction in sequence.

ii. A brief title for the instruction describing the subject matter.

iii. The complete text of the instruction.

iv. The legal authority supporting the instruction.

v. The parties shall, by italics or underlining, designate any 

modification from statutory or case authority, or any pattern or form 

instruction, or any other source of pattern instructions.

vi. The parties must specifically state the modification made to the 

original form instruction and the legal authority supporting the 

modification.

vii. All blanks in form instructions should be completed and all 

brackets removed.

d. Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions shall be used where the subject of 

the instruction is covered by the model instructions, including for all 

standard instructions. State model jury instructions, such as BAJI or CACI 

instructions, shall be used where applicable as to state law claims. The 

parties shall designate, by italics or underlining, any proposed modification 

of instructions from any pattern instruction, such as the Ninth Circuit 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 24 of 39
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

25

Model Civil Jury Instructions or other pattern instructions, or from 

statutory or case authority. The parties must specifically state the 

modification made to the standard instruction and the legal authority 

supporting the proposed modification. All instructions shall be short, 

concise, understandable, and neutral and accurate statements of the law. 

Argumentative instructions will not be given and must not be submitted.

e. The parties shall e-mail two copies of their proposed jury instructions to 

vgonzales@caed.uscourts.gov no later than February 11, 2025. One set 

shall indicate the party proposing the instruction, with each instruction 

numbered, and shall cite supporting authority. The other set shall be an 

exact copy of the first set but shall be a “clean” copy that does not contain 

the identification of the offering party, the instruction number, supporting 

authority, or any reference to the Court’s disposition of the proposed 

instruction.

3. Objections to proposed jury instructions

a. The parties must file any objections to proposed jury instructions by 

February 18, 2025. Each objection shall identify the challenged 

instruction and shall provide a concise explanation of the basis for the 

objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the objecting 

party shall submit an alternative proposed instruction on the issue or 

identify which of his or her own proposed instructions covers the subject.

XXVII. TRIAL BRIEFS

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file a trial brief. If any 

party wishes to submit a trial brief, they must do so by February 18, 2025.

XXVIII. USE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT IN COURTROOM

Any party wishing to receive an overview or tutorial of the court’s electronic equipment 

must contact the Courtroom Deputy Victoria Gonzales at (559) 499-5676 or 

vgonzales@caed.uscourts.gov at least three (3) weeks before the start of trial to schedule a 

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 25 of 39
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

26

tutorial session at a time convenient to the court’s information technology staff. The parties need 

to coordinate so everyone who is interested can attend the IT conference as the court will hold 

only one conference per case. The parties and counsel shall confer and advise the courtroom 

deputy of the date and time that has been agreed upon. Counsel will not be provided any training 

on the day of or during the trial. The electronic equipment and resources available for this trial 

may differ from the equipment and resources available in other courtrooms and may even differ 

from the equipment and resources available in this courtroom at another time. It is the 

responsibility of the parties to familiarize themselves with the equipment and resources available 

for use in this trial prior to the commencement of trial. If any party is unfamiliar with the 

equipment and resources available for use in this trial, that party may be ordered to proceed 

without the aid of such equipment and resources and/or may be sanctioned for any fees, costs, or 

expenses associated with any delay.

XXIX. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

Written objections to the pretrial order, if any, must be filed within 10 days from the date 

of service of this order. Such objections shall specify the requested modifications, corrections, 

additions, or deletions.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 26 of 39
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

27

XXX. COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER

Strict compliance with this pretrial order and its requirements is mandatory. The Court

will enforce the requirements of this pretrial order, and counsel and parties are subject to 

sanctions for failure to comply fully with this order and its requirements. The Court will modify 

the pretrial order “only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). The Court 

ADMONISHES the parties and counsel to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local 

Rules, and the Court’s orders. Failure to do so will make the parties and/or counsel subject to 

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 27 of 39
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

28

ATTACHMENT A: Plaintiff’s Witnesses

Individual Fact v. Expert Contact Information

1. Joshua Howard Fact c/o Kern Valley State Prison

2. William Coleman Fact Unknown

3. Maybren Johnson Fact Unknown

4. Dr. Steven Yaplee Fact Triangle Eye Institute

9700 Brimhall Rd.

Bakersfield, CA 93312

5. J. Gutierrez (former 

Correctional Officer)

Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

6. Santa Maria Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

7. Holland Fact Unknown

8. Kilmer Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

9. Rachel DeLuna Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

10. Abel Garcia Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 28 of 39
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

29

11. Daniel Verduzco Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

12. K. Westergren Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

13. J. Gutierrez (former 

Associate Warden)

Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

14. J. Jones Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

15. L. Cardenas Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 29 of 39
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

30

ATTACHMENT B: Defendants’ Witnesses

Individual Fact v. Expert Contact Information

1. O. Delgado Fact

c/o California Correctional Institution

2. C. Martinez Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

3. G. Arellano Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

4. V. Moore Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

5. B. Mayfield Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

6. R. Montanez Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

7. H. Bennett Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

8. E. Barron Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

9. J. Gonzales Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

10. A. Martinez Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 30 of 39
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

31

11. A. Holguin Fact c/o Jeremy Duggan

Office of the Attorney General 

1300 I Street 

Suite 125 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916-210-6008 

Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov

12. A. Moreno Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

13. S. Casillas Fact c/o Jeremy Duggan

Office of the Attorney General 

1300 I Street 

Suite 125 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916-210-6008 

Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov

14. S. Lomas Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

15. R. DeLuna Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

16. D. King Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

17. E. Barajas Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

18. A. Garcia Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

19. J. Gonzales Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

20. J. Jones Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 31 of 39
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

32

21. D. Crounse Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

22. D. Calvillo Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

23. T. Diaz Expert c/o Jeremy Duggan

Office of the Attorney General 

1300 I Street 

Suite 125 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916-210-6008 

Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov

24. R. Wilson Expert c/o Jeremy Duggan 

Office of the Attorney General 

1300 I Street 

Suite 125 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916-210-6008 

Email: Jeremy.Duggan@doj.ca.gov

25. Custodian of Records for CDCR Fact c/o California Correctional Institution

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 32 of 39
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

33

ATTACHMENT C: Plaintiff’s Exhibits

Ex. Description Beginning Bates Nos. Ending Bates Nos.

1. Medical Records of A. Holguin

2. Medical Reconciliation Reports

3. Physicians’ Orders CDC 7221

4. Patient Care Tracking Records CDCR 7882

5.

Health Care Services Request Forms CDC 

7362

6. Interdisciplinary Progress Notes CDC 7230

7. Chronic Care Progress Notes 7419

8. Encounter Forms

9. Initial Health Screenings CDCR 7277

10.

Health Care Services Physician Requests for 

Services CDC 7243

11. Hearing Test Results

12. Dental History Records CDCR 7443

13.

Dental Examination and Treatment Plans 

CDCR 237-B

14.

Supplemental Dental Examination and 

Treatment Plans CDCR 237-B-1

15. Periodontal Charts CDCR 7431

16.

Supplemental Dental Progress Notes CDCR 

237-C-1

17. Dental Pain Profiles CDCR 237-F

18. Photos of Plaintiff

19. Photos of Ariel Holguin

20. Complaint, People v. McCoy, MF012024A

21. Probable Cause Declaration

22. Inmate Segregation Records, CDC 114-A

23. District Attorney Referral Status Reports

24.

Case Law- Holt v. Nichols, 1:09-cv-00800-

AWI-SAB

25.

Departmental Operation Manual Section 

51030.8 - Threats

26. Rules Violation Reports CDC 115

27.

Multi-Purpose Worksheet for Inmate 

Conduct/Information Documentation CDC 

115

28. Administrative Contact Reports

29. Chrono 5 CDC 128-C

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 33 of 39
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

34

30.

Primary Care Provider Progress Notes, 

CDCR 7230-M

31.

Triage and Treatment Services Flow Sheet 

CDCR 7464

32. X-ray Mandible Fracture Results

33.

Triangle Eye Institute Medical 

Reports/Records

34. Mail Logs

35. Declarations of Plaintiff Lakeith McCoy

36. Declarations of Daniel Verduzco

37.

Statements from Plaintiff dated March 13, 

2015

38.

CDCR Memorandum Dated 2-22-2016 to: 

Brandon Stallings

39. Crime/Incident Reports 837-A

40. Crime/Incident Reports 837-A1

41. Crime/Incident Reports 837-B1

42. Crime/Incident Reports 837-B2

43. Crime/Incident Reports 837-C

44. Crime/Incident Reports 837-C1

45. Crime/Incident Reports 837-C2

46.

Medical Reports of Injuries or Unusual 

Occurrences

47.

Multi-purpose Worksheets for Inmate 

Conduct/Information Documentation

48. Chronos CDC 128 B

49. CCI Holding Cell Logs

50.

Employee’s Reports to Supervisor of JobRelated Injury/Illness IIPP Form 6

51.

Occupational Illness or Exposure 

Investigation Reports IIPP Form 5b

52. Miranda Rights Forms

53. Serious Rules Violations Reports CDC 115-A

54. Rules Violations Reports CDC 115-C

55. Excerpts from Title 15

56. Health Care Appeals

57. Inmate Request for Interviews

58. Inmate Appeal Assignment Notices

59.

Inmate/Parolee Request for Interview, Item, 

or Service CDCR 22

60. Letters from Office of Appeals

61.

Sacramento Bee Report: Guards Accused of 

Cruelty, Racism

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 34 of 39
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

35

62. Staff Assignment Rosters

63.

Preliminary Hearing Transcripts, People v. 

McCoy, MF012024A

64. Interrogatories of All Defendants

65.

Inmate Interview Video, Log #CCI-FAA-15-

03-0044

66. Incident Report-Cover Sheets CDCR 837-A

67.

Crime/Incident Reports- Supplement CDCR 

837-A1

68. Amended Administrative Contact Reports

69. Staff Sign-in Sheet/Time cards

70. Departmental Operations Manual

71. Inmate/Parolee Appeals CDCR 602/602-A

72. Letters from Division Adult Institutions

73.

California Correctional Institution SHU/ASU 

Orientation Manual

74.

Correspondence from Kern County District 

Attorney

75.

Correspondence from Office of the Inspector 

General

76. Information, People v. McCoy, MF012024A

77.

Civil Complaint, LaKeith LeRoy McCoy v. 

CDCR et al., BCV-15-101024-TSC

78.

California Code of Regulations Title 15-

Crime Prevention and Corrections

79.

Memorandum dated December 30, 2011, 

Secure Appeal Collection Sides and Related 

Matters

80.

2015 Special Review: High Desert State 

Prison, Susanville, CA

81. Cell/Locker Search Receipts

82. Inmate Property Inventory CDC 1083

83. Government Claims Forms

84.

Inmate/Parolee Appeals Tracking System 

Reports

85.

Deposition, McCoy v. CDCR, BCV-15-

101024-TSC

86.

Interrogatory Responses from A. Holguin, 

McCoy v. CDCR, BCV-15-101024-TSC

87.

Interrogatory Responses from CDCR, McCoy 

v. CDCR, BCV-15-101024-TSC

88. Inmate Segregation Profiles CDC 114-A1

89.

Correspondence from Medical Board of 

Central California Complaint Unit

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 35 of 39
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

36

90. Memorandums

91.

Habeas Corpus, In Re: Daniel Verduzco, HC 

014734A

92. Declaration of Jasper Wilson

93.

Letter to Warden Kim Holland from Daniel 

Verduzco

94. CDC-115 of Daniel Verduzco

95. Miscellaneous

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 36 of 39
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

37

ATTACHMENT D: Defendants’ Exhibits7

Ex. Description Beginning Bates Nos. Ending Bates Nos.

a.

Medical Report of Injury or Unusual 

Appearance, dated March 12, 2015

b.

Medical Report of Injury or Unusual 

Appearance, dated March 12, 2015

c. Picture dated March 12, 2015

d. Picture dated March 12, 2015

e. Picture dated March 12, 2015

f. Picture dated March 12, 2015

g. Picture dated March 12, 2015

h. Picture dated March 12, 2015

i. Picture dated March 12, 2015

j. Picture dated March 12, 2015

k. Picture dated March 12, 2015

l. Picture dated March 12, 2015

m. Picture dated March 12, 2015

n. Picture dated March 12, 2015

o. Picture dated March 12, 2015

p. Picture dated March 12, 2015

q. Picture dated March 12, 2015

r. Picture dated March 12, 2015

s. Picture dated March 12, 2015

t. Picture dated March 12, 2015

u. Picture dated March 12, 2015

v. Picture dated March 12, 2015

w. Picture dated March 12, 2015

x. Picture dated March 12, 2015

y. Picture dated March 12, 2015

z. Picture dated March 12, 2015

aa. Holding Cell Log dated March 12, 2015

bb.

General Chrono by D. King, dated March 

12, 2015

cc.

Rules Violation Report for Battery on a 

Peace Officer for incident dated March 12, 

2015

7

 Defendants’ list of exhibits in their pretrial statement appears to have mislabeled the final five 

exhibits. The instant exhibit list keeps the ordering consistent.

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 37 of 39
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

38

dd.

Rules Violation Report for Possession of an 

Inmate Manufactured Weapon, for Incident 

dated March 12, 2015

ee.

Criminal Information, People v. McCoy, 

Bakersfield Superior Court Case No. 

MF012024A

ff.

Abstract of Judgment, Assault with a 

Deadly Weapon, People v. McCoy, 

Riverside Superior Court Case No. 

RIF125089, dated July 2, 2009

gg.

Abstract of Judgment, Assault with a 

Deadly Weapon with Gun/False 

Imprisonment, People v. McCoy, Riverside 

Superior Court Case No. RIF130139, dated 

July 9, 2009

hh.

Abstract of Judgment, Attempted Murder, 

People v. McCoy, Riverside Superior Court 

Case No. RIF130139, dated July 9, 2009

ii.

Abstract of Judgment, Assault by a State 

Prisoner, April 7, 2015, People v. McCoy, 

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 

MA058865

jj.

Rules Violation Report for Fighting, 

incident dated October 2, 2011

kk.

Rules Violation Report for Possession of 

Dangerous Property, incident dated August 

5, 2012

ll.

Rules Violation Report for Possession of a 

Deadly Weapon, incident dated August 5, 

2012

mm.

Rules Violation Report for Battery on a 

Peace Officer with Serious Bodily Injury, 

Incident Date August 5, 2012

nn.

Rules Violation Report for Fighting, 

incident dated December 27, 2013

oo.

Rules Violation Report for Battery on an 

Inmate incident dated September 30, 2014

pp.

Rules Violation Report for Fighting, 

incident dated May 26, 2017

qq.

Rules Violation Report for Fermentation or 

Distillation of Materials incident dated 

October 12, 2017

rr.

Rules Violation Report for Delaying a 

Peace Officer in the Performance of Duties, 

incident dated March 30, 2019

ss.

Rules Violation Report for Delaying a 

Peace Officer in the Performance of Duties, 

incident dated August 1, 2019

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 38 of 39
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

39

tt.

Order Declaring Vexatious Litigant, McCoy 

v. CDCR, Kern County Superior Court 

Case No BCV-16-102728

uu.

Order Revoking IFP Status, McCoy v. 

Holguin, Eastern District Case No. 1:15-cv00768-DAD-JDP

vv.

Expert Report of Tony Diaz dated 

September 7, 2021

ww.

Expert Report of R. Wilson dated 

September 7, 2021

Case 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK Document 246 Filed 12/13/24 Page 39 of 39