Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00786/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00786-17/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

GARY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. STEGLINSKI,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00786-SAB

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(ECF No. 89)

Plaintiff Gary Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant S. Steglinski 

for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter is set for jury trial before 

the undersigned on April 19, 2016, at 8:30 a.m.

On February 22, 2016, Defendant filed motions in limine. (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff did 

not file an opposition to Defendant’s motions in limine. On March 28, 2016, the Court held a 

telephonic motions in limine hearing, and counsel Arthur Mark III and Misha Igra appeared on 

behalf of Defendant and Plaintiff appeared pro se. 

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion in limine 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). A party may 

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 94 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 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

use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it is actually 

introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). “[A] motion in limine 

is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded 

management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 

F.3d 436,440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary 

disputes before trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the 

jury, thereby relieving the trial judge from the formidable task of neutralizing the taint of 

prejudicial evidence. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003). 

II.

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A. Testimony by Plaintiff Regarding Medical Opinion

Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from introducing testimony, opinions or argument 

that being hit by a foam rubber round caused him any permanent, on-going, or long term 

physical injuries or mental and emotional distress. Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not 

possess the knowledge or expertise to provide an opinion as to the cause and effect relationship 

between being hit with a foam rubber round and any of Plaintiff’s asserted medical conditions. 

At the hearing, Plaintiff did not contest being precluded from testifying regarding a diagnosis, 

opinions, inferences or causation for any medical matter.

“If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited 

to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly 

understanding the witness’s testimony or determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on 

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” Fed. R. 

Evid. 701. As a non-expert witness, Plaintiff may testify as to what he saw or felt relating to his 

medical needs or condition, but may not testify as to any medical matter which requires 

scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion in limine is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff may testify as 

to what he experienced as a result of the May 24, 2010 incident. However, Plaintiff may not 

testify regarding a diagnosis, opinions, inferences or causation. 

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 94 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 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

3

B. Testimony by Plaintiff Regarding Ballistic Characteristics of Foam Rubber 

Rounds or the Operation of the Launcher 

Defendant moves to exclude opinion testimony by Plaintiff as to whether the foam rubber 

round that hit him was fired directly at him, how the foam rubber round hit him, the ballistic 

characteristics of foam rubber rounds or the operation of the less lethal weapon at issue in this 

case. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has no training in forensics, the use of firearms or training 

in the type of weapons at issue in this case. Defendant contends that Plaintiff does not have any 

other specialized knowledge about ballistic characteristics of foam rubber rounds and operation 

of the launcher. At the hearing, Plaintiff proffered that he saw Defendant pointing the gun at him 

and then heard a noise and then felt being hit in the neck. At the hearing, Defendant argued that 

Plaintiff testified during his deposition that he could not see. Defendant stated that Plaintiff 

testified during his deposition about the velocity of the round. 

Defendant is not entitled at this juncture to a broad preclusion of evidence on the basis 

that these subjects require specialized knowledge which Plaintiff does not possess. Plaintiff can 

testify about his own observations and experiences during the incident from personal knowledge. 

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 701 allows a lay witness to offer opinions that are (a) 

rationally based on the witness’s perception, (b) helpful to the jury, and (c) not based on 

scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of expert testimony. 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion in limine is DENIED, without prejudice, to renewal during 

trial by way of an appropriate and specific objection. 

C. Reference to Claims That Were Dismissed

Defendant moves to exclude Plaintiff from making any reference to dismissed claims 

against Kaur, Epperson, Horton, and Dyer. Defendant argues that testimony or evidence about 

claims the Court has dismissed could confuse the jury, waste time, and risk prejudice to 

Defendant that substantially outweigh the probative value of any evidence or testimony 

concerning the dismissed claims. At the hearing, Defendant argued that events that occurred 

after the remaining claim occurred are irrelevant. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that all relevant evidence is admissible and 

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 94 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 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

4

evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence 

having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the 

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the 

evidence.” Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if it will cause prejudice, 

undue delay, a waste of time, or a needless presentation of cumulative evidence in the discretion 

of the Court. Obrey v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 691, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion in limine is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff may not 

provide testimony about or reference any claims that he filed that were previously dismissed 

from this action as such evidence is not relevant and is subject to exclusion under Rule 403. 

However, Plaintiff may discuss facts that are relevant to his remaining claim. Defendant may 

renew during trial his request to exclude testimony about facts that occurred after the incident in 

the remaining claim by raising an appropriate and specific objection.

D. Reference to CDCR or the State Paying Damages or Judgment 

Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from referencing, arguing, or mentioning that the 

State of California or California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) may 

pay the judgment. Defendant argues that this is irrelevant, prejudicial, and improper evidence of 

indemnity. At the hearing, Plaintiff objected to this request. 

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 411, evidence that a person was insured at the time the 

harm was suffered by another is inadmissible to prove liability. The reason for this evidentiary 

rule is that the evidence is both irrelevant and prejudicial to the defendant. Jamison v. A.M. 

Byers Co., 330 F.2d 657, 661-662 (3d Cir. 1964). The evidence is prejudicial because a jury is 

more inclined to deliver a verdict against a defendant if it believes that he is indemnified as 

opposed to the defendant alone being required to satisfy the judgment. Langley v. Turner’s 

Express, Inc., 375 F.2d 296, 297 (4th Cir. 1967). 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion in limine is GRANTED. Any argument or evidence with 

regard to payment by the State of California or CDCR is both irrelevant and more prejudicial 

than probative and shall be excluded.

\ \ \

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 94 Filed 03/28/16 Page 4 of 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

5

E. Evidence Regarding “Green Wall,” “Code of Silence,” or Other Conspiracy 

Theories

Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from presenting any evidence, testimony, or 

argument about the “Green Wall,” “Code of Silence,” or other conspiracy theories among 

employees of CDCR, because such evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial. Defendant argues that

there is no evidence that Defendant participated in any such conspiracy. At the hearing, Plaintiff 

stated that things were going on and are still going on at Kern Valley State Prison. 

Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that all relevant evidence is admissible and 

evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence 

having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the 

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the 

evidence.” Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if it will cause prejudice, 

undue delay, a waste of time, or a needless presentation of cumulative evidence in the discretion 

of the Court. Obrey v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 691, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion is limine in GRANTED. Plaintiff may not elicit testimony 

regarding a “Green Wall,” “Code of Silence,” or other conspiracy theories because such terms

and evidence are unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 94 Filed 03/28/16 Page 5 of 5