Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02477/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02477-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

14cv2477-MMA (MDD) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JESSIE W. JONES, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

F. GARDINER, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 14cv2477-MMA (MDD) 

NOTICE AND ORDER PROVIDING 

TENTATIVE RULINGS RE: 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

 On October 11, 2017 at 3:00 p.m., the parties in this prisoner civil rights action will 

appear before the Court for a final pretrial conference and hearing on the parties’ pending 

motions in limine. See Doc. Nos. 49, 50. In anticipation of the hearing, the Court issues 

the following tentative rulings on the motions: 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

 1. The Court tentatively GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s 

motion to exclude evidence of his 2014 felony conviction. The Court tentatively finds 

that Plaintiff’s conviction is not relevant to the substantive issues at trial. However, 

evidence of a conviction for a crime punishable for more than one year is admissible, 

subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness. 

See Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(A). Therefore, the Court tentatively finds that Defendant 

should be allowed to impeach Plaintiff’s testimony with the fact of his 2014 felony 

Case 3:14-cv-02477-MMA-MDD Document 58 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

14cv2477-MMA (MDD) 

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

conviction. 

 2. The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of 

his prison disciplinary history. The Court tentatively finds that evidence regarding any 

rules violations or other prison disciplinary incidents involving Plaintiff is not admissible 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), because it is classic “other acts” evidence. 

 3. The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting 

him to appear in civilian clothing and be unrestrained during trial.1

 The Court tentatively 

finds that Defendant has not demonstrated “compelling circumstances” exist to justify 

Plaintiff being restrained during trial. 

 4. The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and will exclude all nonparty fact witnesses from the courtroom prior to testifying pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Evidence 615. 

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS

 1. The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant’s motion to exclude any expert 

testimony proffered by Plaintiff at trial regarding: (1) expert medical opinion regarding 

causation that was not formed at the time of treatment; (2) Plaintiff’s alleged need for 

future medical care or treatment; (3) past or future medical special damages; and (4) 

hearsay testimony regarding Plaintiff’s prognosis. The Court tentatively finds that 

Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s treating physician may testify as to any percipient observations 

regarding Plaintiff’s medical needs or condition, but may not testify as to any medical 

matter which requires scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. 

 2. The Court tentatively GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s 

motion to admit evidence of Plaintiff’s prior felony convictions. The Court tentatively 

finds that it would not be overly prejudicial for Defendant to impeach Plaintiff with the 

fact of his 2014 conviction. However, the Court tentatively finds that evidence of 

                                                                

1

 While the Court may permit Plaintiff to appear in civilian clothing, the Court does not have the 

authority to order his state custodians to place Plaintiff in any clothing other than his state-issued 

uniform. 

Case 3:14-cv-02477-MMA-MDD Document 58 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

14cv2477-MMA (MDD) 

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

Plaintiff’s 1993 and 1996 convictions should be excluded as more prejudicial than 

probative. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

 3. The Court tentatively DENIES Defendant’s motion to exclude any 

testimony or argument that Plaintiff’s alleged nerve injury will cause him future lost 

income because of the alleged limited use of his left hand, or that Plaintiff will incur costs 

for future medical care. Generally speaking, a plaintiff should be permitted to introduce 

evidence regarding damages, including the need for future medical care, as the evidence 

is relevant and probative of injury. Although it is unclear what evidence Plaintiff will 

offer regarding lost future income or future medical care, the Court tentatively finds it 

inappropriate to categorically exclude such evidence. 

 4. The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant’s motion to exclude any 

evidence of his involvement in past litigation or uses of force. The Court tentatively 

finds that prior inmate complaints against Defendant, or uses of force by Defendant, are 

not sufficiently probative of the issues in this case, particularly when balanced against the 

risk of causing juror confusion or prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. However, if 

Defendant testifies regarding his handcuffing habits, or for some reason testifies 

regarding his prior uses of force against inmates, then Plaintiff may cross-examine him 

regarding those issues. 

 As these rulings are tentative, the Court looks forward to the oral arguments of 

counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: October 10, 2017 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-02477-MMA-MDD Document 58 Filed 10/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3