Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022-88/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 Troas V. Barnett (“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 Martin Gamboa, Angel Duran and Manuel Torres for use of excessive force 

against him in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 

and against Defendant Torres for the failure to intervene to protect Plaintiff from harm in violation of 

his rights under the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented magistrate judge jurisdiction. 

(Plaintiff’s consent, ECF No. 9; Defendants’ consents, ECF Nos. 62, 93). 

The parties submitted pretrial statements, and on December 17, 2015, the Court held a 

telephonic trial confirmation hearing. Having reviewed the statement and the remainder of the file and 

TROAS V. BARNETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:05-CV-01022-BAM (PC)

PRETRIAL ORDER

Motions in Limine Filing Deadline: January 8, 2016

Opposition to Motions in Limine Filing Deadline:

January 20, 2016

Motion in Limine Hearing: February 2, 2016 at 10:00 

am. in Courtroom 8 (BAM)

Jury Trial: February 23, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. in 

Courtroom 8 (BAM)

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 16
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

having considered the issues raised at the telephonic trial confirmation hearing, the Court issues the 

instant pretrial order.

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this federal civil rights action. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Venue is proper because the conduct allegedly occurred in this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

II. Trial

The parties demand a trial by jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). 

Trial is set for February 23, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. 

McAuliffe in Courtroom 8 (BAM).

III. Facts

A. Plaintiff’s Undisputed Facts

It is undisputed that on November 4, 2003 at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility – Corcoran, Defendant then tower Officer Manual Torres instructed Plaintiff to enter an

occupied single man shower stall. It is undisputed that Plaintiff refused to enter the shower stall. It is 

further undisputed that afterward a disagreement ensued resulting in Defendants using force which 

resulted in Plaintiff being admitted to the emergency room for a 3-1/2 inch laceration to the top left 

side of his skull, requiring anesthetic injections and the implantation of eight large staples into 

Plaintiff’s skull to close the laceration. It is also undisputed that afterward Plaintiff sought medical 

attention as to cause of ringing in both of his ears. Doctors conducted test commensurate with medical 

science and determined that the Plaintiff sustained sensorineural bilateral hearing loss in both ears. It is 

also undisputed that Plaintiff sustained numerous other injuries during the incident of November 4, 

2003 incident initially not noted on the medical report of the occurrence.

B. Defendants’ Undisputed Facts

1. Plaintiff is a prisoner of the State of California serving a life term under the three strikes law.

2. On November 4, 2003, plaintiff was incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility in Corcoran, California.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 16
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

3. On November 4, 2003, Defendants Martin Gamboa, Angel Duran, and Manuel Torres 

(“defendants”) were correctional officers employed by the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation.

4. On November 4, 2003, Officer Gamboa and Officer Duran were floor officers assigned to 

Building 7.

5. On November 4, 2003, Officer Torres was the control booth officer assigned to Building 7 at 

the time of the incident.

6. On the date of the incident, plaintiff was assigned to cell 206.

C. Plaintiff’s Disputed Factual Issues

It is a disputed factual issue whether Plaintiff assaulted Defendants Martin Gamboa and Angel 

Duran on November 4, 2003 at the C.S.A.T.F. It is a disputed factual issue whether Defendants 

Gamboa and Duran upon completion of a cell search of cell 206 pulled Plaintiff inside of cell 206 and 

thereafter subjected Plaintiff to a malicious and sadistic beating utilizing a heavy metal Mag-lite 

flashlight and state issued baton and whether during the occurrence Defendant Manuel Torres 

witnessed Defendants Gamboa and Duran beating Plaintiff inside cell 206 and failed to act: delaying 

the activation of the emergency response alarm for a 2-3 minute duration. It is a disputed factual issue 

whether after Plaintiff was severely and seriously injured Manuel Torres fired an unnecessary round 

from the 40mm launcher. 

It is also a disputed factual issue whether after the Defendants malicious/sadistic use of force 

whether Defendants Gamboa, Duran, and Torres filed false rules violation reports and criminal 

charges against Plaintiff to conceal their unlawful conduct.

D. Defendants’ Disputed Factual Issues

Whether on November 4, 2003, the force applied by Duran was applied in a good faith effort to 

maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.

Whether on November 4, 2003, the force applied by Gamboa was applied in a good faith effort 

to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 16
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

Whether on November 4, 2003, Torres applied any force and if so, whether it was applied in a 

good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose 

of causing harm.

Whether Torres failed to protect Barnett from the alleged assault by Gamboa and Duran.

Whether plaintiff ignored orders to prone out.

Whether Duran ever struck plaintiff with a flashlight.

Whether Torres activated his alarm upon realizing that there was an altercation involving 

Barnett.

Whether the firing of a baton round by Torres injured the plaintiff.

Whether plaintiff suffered any permanent injury as a result of this incident.

E. Disputed Evidentiary Issues1

1. Plaintiff’s Disputed Evidentiary Issues

It is a disputed evidentiary issue whether Crime/Incident Reports Part B – Involved Parties 

Relative to November 4, 2003 SATF-03-03-11-0436 Rules Violation Reports are properly admissible 

in the upcoming trial. Specifically the reports of Jason Barba, badge #58941, 11-4-03; David Norman, 

badge #55377, 11-4-03; Tracy Jackson, badge #56966, 11-4-03.

Plaintiff argues that under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(b) they are properly admissible 

under that rule. A report prepared from information transmitted by a person with knowledge may be 

admissible if that report was kept in the course of a regular practice of the institution to make such a 

report. Further the method or circumstances of preparation do not indicate lack of trustworthiness. The 

suppliers of information acted within regular course; not only was the entrants under a business duty to 

record the event and were under a contemporaneous business duty to report the occurrence to the 

entrant as well. Officers statement carries with it the requisite degree of trustworthiness essential to the 

business records exception. Defendants have admitted authenticity of the documents January 12, 2011. 

Wheeler v. Sims, 951 F.2d 796, 802 n.5 (7th Cir.)

///

 

1 The parties may file motions in limine, addressed below, and/or object to the introduction of evidence 

at trial.

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 16
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

2. Defendants’ Disputed Evidentiary Issues

Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that the criminal prosecution against him for assault on an 

officer was dismissed for insufficient evidence. Defendants object to the introduction of this evidence 

on the ground that the dismissal of the case against plaintiff for battery is irrelevant to the issue of 

whether defendants violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. 

Plaintiff also seeks to introduce the entirety of a videotape that shows plaintiff being housed at 

a new institution after the incident. Defendants object to portions of the videotape on the ground that it 

includes segments of nudity and a body cavity search which are irrelevant to this litigation and more 

prejudicial than probative. 

Plaintiff plans to offer testimony regarding medical reports, including an MRI and the meaning 

of a finding of “ischemic changes.” This testimony should be precluded as plaintiff lacks 

qualifications to offer medical testimony. 

Plaintiff will attempt to offer evidence that Duran has been convicted of various crimes after 

this incident. Duran is currently appealing those convictions and hence, the judgments are not final 

and no evidence should be admitted that he has been convicted nor should any evidence be admitted as 

to the nature of the convictions.

Plaintiff appears to intend to offer into evidence transcripts of the first trial. Defendants object 

to the admission of such transcripts into evidence.

F. Special Factual Information

None.

IV. Relief Sought

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. 

In the event the jury returns a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, the verdict will be a finding that 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated. Accordingly, the Court finds that a declaration that any 

defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights is unnecessary and redundant. See United States v. Washington, 

759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985) (declaratory relief should be denied when it will neither clarify 

the legal relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings and afford relief from any uncertainty)

///

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 5 of 16
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

V. Points of Law

A. Imposition of Liability Under Section 1983

Under section 1983, Plaintiff is required to prove that each defendant (1) acted under color of 

state law and (2) deprived him of rights secured by the Eighth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff must 

prove that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 

297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “A supervisor is liable under § 1983 for a subordinate’s 

constitutional violations ‘if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the 

violations and failed to act to prevent them.’” Maxwell v. Cnty. of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075, 1086 

(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)). There is no respondeat 

superior liability under section 1983, and each defendant is only liable for his own misconduct. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009).

B. Eighth Amendment – Excessive Force Claim

The relevant inquiry for this Eighth Amendment claim is “whether force was applied in a 

good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 67, 112 S. Ct. 995, 998 (1992); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 

320-21, 106 S. Ct. 1078, 1085 (1986). In making this determination, the court may evaluate “the need 

for the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, 

[and] the extent of injury inflicted.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S. Ct. at 1085; Marquez v. 

Gutierrez, 322 F.3d 689, 692 (9th Cir. 2003). Prison administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging

deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to 

preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 

321-22 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970)). 

While the absence of a serious injury is relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, it does not 

end it. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates 

contemporary standards of decency. Wilkins, 130 S. Ct. at 1178 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) 

(quotation marks omitted). Thus, it is the use of force rather than the resulting injury which ultimately 

counts. Wilkins, 130 S. Ct. at 1178.

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 6 of 16
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

C. Eighth Amendment – Failure to Intervene

Prison officials are required “to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse.” 

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982) (abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. 

O’Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)). “[A] prison official can violate a 

prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to intervene.” Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 

(9th Cir. 1995). 

D. Punitive Damages

Plaintiff has the burden of proving what, if any, punitive damages should be awarded by a 

preponderance of the evidence. NINTH CIRCUIT MODEL CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS § 5.5 

(2008). The jury must find that Defendants’ conduct was “motivated by evil motive or intent, or . . . 

involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 

461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625 (1986). Acts or omissions which are malicious, wanton, or oppressive 

support an award of punitive damages. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807-08 (9th Cir. 2005).

E. Federal Rules of Evidence

Federal Rule of Evidence 609 provides that evidence of a witness’s prior felony conviction 

may be used to impeach that witness’s testimony. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts cannot 

be used to prove the character of the person in order to show conduct in conformity with that character 

trait. Such prior acts may be admissible for other purposes only, such as proof of motive, opportunity, 

intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Id.

VI. Abandoned Issues

None.

VII. Witnesses

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including 

rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN 

THIS SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL 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)(10).

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 7 of 16
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

A. Plaintiff’s Witness List

1. Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett

2. Jermain Delfonso Moore

3. Manrique Jorge Luis

B. Defendants’ Witness List2

1. Defendant M. Gamboa

2. Defendant A. Duran

3. Defendant M. Torres

VIII. Exhibits

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at 

trial. NO EXHIBIT, 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)(11).

A. Plaintiff’s Exhibits

See Plaintiff’s “Trial Exhibit Log” i.e. Pltf. Ex. No.#s O=Offered Obj=Objection RR=Ruling 

Reversed OR=Overruled S=Sustained A=Admitted. Exhibits and Exhibit Trial Log Attached Hereto. 

Plaintiff will also seek to offer answers to Interrogatories and Admissions December 17, 2010. 

Plaintiff will also offer reporter transcripts from first jury trial of January 22-24, 2013. 

Plaintiff asserts that Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(1) makes a prior inconsistent 

statement under oath admissible for its truth. Admissible as substantial evidence if made under oath. 

Plaintiff will also offer testimony RT Kings County Superior Court case no. 04CM-7068.

1. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kings April 5, 2005 Judge Lynn C. 

Atkinson District Attorney Tonya Lee Criminal Case No. 04CM-7068. District Attorney request case 

dismissed for insufficient evidence.

 

2 Defendants are not required to call all of the witnesses listed. However, as is the Court’s general 

practice in cases such as this, witnesses the defense plans to call shall be present on February 23, 2015 by 

9:30 a.m. and shall be available for Plaintiff to call for direct examination.

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 8 of 16
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

2. Crime Incident Report Part C-1 Supplement 5 pages; Medical Report of Injury Martin 

Gamboa; Picture of Mag-lite Flashlight; photographs of Gamboa 7# pictures. November 4, 2003 at 

C.S.A.T.F.

3. Crime Incident Report Part C-1 Supplement 2 pages; Medical Report of Injury Angel Duran; 

pictures of P-24 baton; photographs of Duran’s knee 3# pictures November 4, 2003 Angel Duran’s 

medical treatment records 3 pages M.D. Umesh; Bhagia; George A. Rabey M.D.; Ani Thompson, 

M.P.T. November 4, 2003 at C.S.A.T.F.

4. Crime Incident Report C-1 Supplement 4 pages Manuel Torres November 4, 2003 at 

C.S.A.T.F.

5. Program Status Report Part B – Plan of Operation/Staff and Inmate Notification. Effective 

Date of Plan November 3, 2003. C.S.A.T.F.

6. 1st Medical Report of Injury November 4, 2003 1835 hours at C.S.A.T.F. claiming active 

bleeding and bruise discoloration area.

7. Typed transcript interview dated November 3, 2004 David Andres; Harold Duncan C.S.A.T.F. 

emergency room 4 pages.

8. Photographs of Plaintiff’s shoes; photographs of Plaintiff’s shirt, socks and shoes; blue pants; 

tank top; boxers; 10# photographs.

9. 2nd Medical Report of Injury November 4, 2003 1835 hours at C.S.A.T.F. noting broken bone; 

bruise/discoloration; cut/laceration/slash; reddened area; swollen area; 8 staples to top left side of skull 

at C.S.A.T.F.; (7) seven close-up photographs of injury laceration to Plaintiff’s skull; physicians 

progress notes November 4, 2003 2300 hours CDC 7230 at C.S.A.T.F.; CDC 7286 emergency room 

admission 1845 hours treating physician Dr. Deering 11-4-2003; X-ray Request Report Form 11-17-

03 skull series Jeffrey K. Child; Orthopaedic clinic notes 8-17-2005 David G. Smith M.D.; Audiology 

Clinic C.S.A.T.F. Consultants Record G. Johnson October 14, 2004 and November 24, 2004; CDC 

Form 1845 Disability Placement Program 2-18-05 hearing impairment. James Carter Thomas, M.D. 

Medical Imaging August 6, 2004 of right forth finger; Orthopedic Clinic David Smith 9-29-2004 and 

August 4, 2004 David G. Smith, M.D.; X-ray request Leonard J. Tyminski, M.D. 1-13-2004; 

physicians orders 11-6-03, 11-10-03.

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 9 of 16
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

10. Photographs of the upper tier C.S.A.T.F. cell 206 and shower; also photos of 201; 202; 203; 

204; 205; 206; 207; 208.

11. Photographs corner area inside cell 206; toilet area, desk area and bunk beds.

12. Photograph of tower with distorted view.

13. Superior Court of California County of Kings County Judicial District Honorable George 

Orndoff, Judge Department 10# Corcoran California September 23, 2004 Criminal Case No. 04CM7068 C.S.R. # 12490 Heidi Benavides Direct Examination Martin Gamboa Pages 3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 

31.

14. Eastern District of California Case No. 1:05-CV-01022-BAM Fresno, California Wednesday, 

January 23, 2013 8:35 AM transcript of proceedings Direct Manual Torres B-249; Martin Gamboa B342; Angel Duran B-425 trial testimony.

B. Defendants’ Exhibits

1. 837 report for the November 4, 2003 Incident

2. Program Status Reports for 11/3/03 and thereafter

3. Abstracts of judgment for plaintiff

4. Abstracts of judgments for Moore and Manrique.

5. Photographs of officers, plaintiff, plaintiff and plaintiff’s clothes

6. Rules violation report dated February 25, 2001 for mutual combat

7. Rules violation report dated April 12, 2000 for attempted battery on a non-inmate

8. Rules violation report dated November 29, 1999 for slashing an inmate 

9. Rules violation report dated April 5, 1997 for mutual combat

10. Rules violation report dated October 8, 1996 for battery on an inmate 

11. 837 Report re battery on Barnett dated April 20, 1999 

12. Rules Violation Report History from 1989 to 2006

13. Various medical records

14. Photographs of Housing Unit C7

15. Video interview of plaintiff on November 4, 2003

16. Audio transcription of the video interview of November 4, 2003

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 10 of 16
11

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. PR 24 Baton

18. Flashlight

19. Plaintiff’s hand drawn rendering, schematic of incident location

IX. Discovery Documents to be Used at Trial

Defendants anticipate potentially offering portions of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and trial 

testimony for impeachment during trial.

X. Further Discovery or Motions

Plaintiff stated in his pretrial statement at the telephone trial confirmation hearing that he 

intends to move the Court for reopening discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining clean copies of 

schematics and/or photographs of the shower, cell block and tower or tier.

As discussed during the telephone trial confirmation hearing, that motion will be denied. 

Discovery is closed in this matter, so the motion is untimely, and Plaintiff has provided no explanation 

of any good cause for the late attempt to reopen discovery here. Furthermore, Defense Counsel 

represented that no schematics or diagrams exist that Plaintiff explained he currently seeks. The Court 

will not order the creation of new evidence at this date, including any creation of any schematic, 

diagram, or any other measurements of any cell or tier distances, lengths, widths, or other dimensions 

of the shower, cell block area, or tower or tier where the events at issue in this matter took place. 

Instead, Plaintiff may testify and may ask questions regarding these matters, if he chooses. 

Nor will the Court order the new photographs that Plaintiff seeks to be taken. Over ten years 

have passed since the incidents Plaintiff is complaining of, and the Court is concerned the conditions 

of the location where the incidents at issue here occurred may have significantly changed. The Court 

finds the current photographs Plaintiff possesses, which were taken much closer in time to the 

occurrences at issue here than now, are satisfactory for the purposes of this trial.

XI. Stipulations

Plaintiff seeks stipulations regarding the use of documents at trial. Specifically, that copies of 

all documents produced during discovery may be used as admissible evidence if such copies are 

complete and legible. Further, that documents produced during discovery may be used in this 

stipulation, including documents provided by a party or witness in response to a subpoena duces 

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 11 of 16
12

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

tecum, an interrogatory, a request for admission, a request for production of documents, or as a 

deposition exhibit. Further, that this stipulation applies to all documents produced prior to the earliest 

date of signing the stipulation and documents signed after the stipulation is signed. Plaintiff further 

seeks a stipulation that documents produced during discovery are deemed authentic, admissible as a 

business record or otherwise subject to an exception to the hearsay rule, such as an official writing 

admission of a party. 

Defendants agree that Plaintiff seeks stipulations as to certain evidence but state that he has not 

identified the specific evidence to which he seeks stipulations.

Plaintiff declined to enter into a stipulation that Defendants acted “under color of law.”

XII. Amendments/Dismissals

None.

XIII. Settlement Negotiations

Defendants do not believe a settlement conference is warranted. 

XIV. Agreed Statement

Defendants do not believe that a presentation of all or part of this action upon an agreed 

statement of facts is feasible or advisible. 

XV. Separate Trial of Issues

Defendants request that the issue of punitive damages be bifurcated.

As is the Court’s general practice, the punitive damages phase, if any, will be bifurcated. 

XVI. Impartial Experts – Limitation of Experts

Plaintiff has moved the Court for the appointment of an expert witness. (ECF No. 343).

Defendants do not believe the Court needs to appoint any impartial expert witness nor limit the 

number of expert witnesses to be called as Defendants are not calling an expert witness. They have 

submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 358.) 

The Court will issue a separate ruling on this matter.

XVII. Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff, seeks attorney’s fees and costs. The Court finds that, as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 

he is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 435, 11 S.Ct. 1435 (1991). 

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 12 of 16
13

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

Defendants may seek reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if they prevail at trial. 

XVIII.Trial Exhibits

No special handling.

Defendants have possession of the video recordings that Plaintiff seeks to introduce and will 

provide copies to the Court at the commencement of trial.

XIX. Trial Protective Order

None.

XX. Miscellaneous

A. Further Trial Preparation

1. Motions in Limine

a. Briefing Schedule

Any party may file a motion in limine, which is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance 

testimony or evidence in a particular area. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quotation marks omitted). In the case of a jury trial, the Court’s ruling gives Plaintiff and Defendants’ 

counsel advance notice of the scope of certain evidence so that admissibility is settled before 

attempted use of the evidence before the jury. Id. at 1111-12 (quotation marks omitted). 

Any motion in limine must be served on the other party, and filed with the Court by January 

8, 2016. Any motion in limine 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 a motion in limine must be served on the other party, and filed with the 

Court by January 20, 2016. No reply briefs shall be submitted by the parties.

An order may be issued prior to trial resolving these motions. Otherwise, a motion in limine 

hearing will be held, telephonically, on February 2, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 (BAM). 

Whether or not a party files a motion in limine, that party may still object to the 

introduction of evidence during the trial.

2. Other

a. Trial Briefs

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

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 13 of 16
14

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

parties wish to submit a trial brief, they must do so on or before February 2, 2016.

b. Verdict Form

The Court will prepare the verdict form, which the parties will have the opportunity to review 

on the morning of trial. If the parties wish to submit a proposed verdict form, they must do so on or 

before February 2, 2016.

c. Jury Instructions

The Court will prepare the jury instructions, which the parties will have the opportunity to 

review on the morning of trial. Defendants shall file proposed jury instructions as provided in Local 

Rule 163 on or before February 2, 2016. Plaintiff is not required to file proposed jury instructions but 

if he wishes to do so, he must file them on or before February 2, 2016. 

The parties shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions to the extent possible. Ninth 

Circuit Model Jury Instructions SHALL be used where the subject of the instruction is covered by a 

model instruction. Otherwise, BAJI or CACI instructions SHALL be used where the subject of the 

instruction is covered by BAJI or CACI. All instructions shall be short, concise, understandable, and 

neutral and accurate statements of the law. Argumentative or formula instructions will not be given 

and must not be submitted. Quotations from legal authorities without reference to the issues at hand 

are unacceptable. 

The parties shall, by italics or underlining, designate any modification of instructions from 

statutory or case authority, or any pattern or form instruction, such as the Ninth Circuit Model Jury 

Instructions, BAJI, CACI, or any other source of pattern instructions. The parties must specifically 

state the modification made to the original form instruction and the legal authority supporting the 

modification.

The Court will not accept a mere list of numbers of form instructions from the Ninth Circuit 

Model Jury Instructions, CACI, BAJI, or other instruction forms. The proposed jury instructions must 

be in the form and sequence which the parties desire to be given to the jury. All blanks to form 

instructions must be completed. Irrelevant or unnecessary portions of form instructions must be 

omitted.

All jury instructions shall indicate the party submitting the instruction (e.g., Plaintiff or 

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 14 of 16
15

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

Defendants), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the instruction 

describing the subject matter, the text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting the 

instruction. Defendants shall provide the Court with a copy of their proposed jury instructions via email at: bamorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

d. Proposed Voir Dire

Proposed voir dire questions, if any, shall be filed on or before February 2, 2016, pursuant to 

Local Rule 162.1.

e. Statement of the Case

The parties may serve and file a non-argumentative, brief statement of the case which is 

suitable for reading to the jury at the outset of jury selection on or before February 2, 2016. The 

Court will consider the parties’ statements but will draft its own statement. The parties will be 

provided with the opportunity to review the Court’s prepared statement on the morning of trial.

f. Trial Exhibits

The original and two (2) copies of all trial exhibits, along with exhibit lists, shall be submitted 

to Courtroom Deputy Harriet Herman no later than February 2, 2016. The parties shall also serve one 

(1) copy of all trial exhibits, along with their exhibit list, on each other no later than February 2, 

2016. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “PX” and numbered sequentially 

beginning with 100 (e.g., PX-100, PX-101, etc.). Defendants’ exhibits shall be pre-marked with the 

prefix “DX” and numbered sequentially beginning with 200 (e.g., DX-200, DX-201, etc.). 

The parties are required to meet and confer, by telephone or other means, to agree upon 

and identify their joint exhibits, if any. Joint exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “JT” and 

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

the original and two copies of the joint trial exhibits, with exhibit lists, no later than February 2, 2016. 

XXI. Objections to Pretrial Order

Written objections to the pretrial order, if any, must be filed on or before January 8, 2016. 

Such objections shall specify the requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions.

XXII. Compliance with Pretrial Order

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

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 15 of 16
16

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

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

failure to fully comply 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 and the Court’s Local Rules and orders. The 

failure to do so will subject the parties and/or counsel to sanctions as the Court deems appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 368 Filed 12/18/15 Page 16 of 16