Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022-58/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROAS V. BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN GAMBOA, ANGEL DURAN, 

and MANUEL TORRES,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv–01022-BAM PC

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(ECF Nos. 213, 214, 215 and 216)

Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett 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 is proceeding on the third amended

complaint against Defendants Martin Gamboa, Angel Duran, and Manuel Torres for excessive force

in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendant Torres for failure to intervene in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 

A jury trial is set for January 22, 2013.

On December 14, 2012, Defendants filed four separate motions in limine. Defendants’

motions in limine were heard on January 15, 2013, before the Honorable Barbara A McAuliffe,

United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Janine Jeffrey

appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants Gamboa, Duran and Torres. 

A. Motions in Limine

A party may 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

1

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 262 Filed 01/16/13 Page 1 of 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

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. Brodit

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

Motions in limine that exclude broad categories of evidence are disfavored, and such issues

are better dealt with during trial as the admissibility of evidence arises. Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire

& Rubber, Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). Additionally, some evidentiary issues are not

accurately and efficiently evaluated by the trial judge in a motion in limine and it is necessary to

defer ruling until trial when the judge can better estimate the impact of the evidence on the jury. 

Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 440. 

B. Defendants’ Motions in Limine

1. Motion in Limine to Preclude References to the Criminal Case Against

Defendant Duran (ECF No. 213)

Defendant Duran was arrested in May 2012 on suspicion of child molestation. He is

currently in custody awaiting trial on these charges. Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from

introducing any evidence regarding these matters in an attempt to attack Defendant Duran’s

character. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

“Evidence of a crime, wrong or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in

order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed.

R. Evid. 404(b)(1). However, such evidence “may be admissible for another purpose, such as

proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or

lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). Further, mention of the allegations or charges would be

unduly prejudicial to the defendant. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Plaintiff was strongly cautioned against

violating this order with a possible remedy of a mistrial.

In this case, there is no indication that evidence of the pending charges against Defendant

Duran would serve any purpose other than impermissibly attacking his character and would be unely

prejudicial. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion in limine is GRANTED. As instructed at the hearing,

2

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 262 Filed 01/16/13 Page 2 of 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

Plaintiff is precluded from introducing any evidence that Defendant Duran was arrested or that there

are charges pending against him. 

2. Motion in Limine to Permit Defendant Duran to Appear at Trial in

Civilian Clothing and Without Restraints (ECF No. 214)

Defendants request that Defendant Duran be allowed to attend the trial in court-appropriate

civilian clothing and to appear before the jury without restraints. To support their request,

Defendants cite cases in the criminal context regarding the prejudicial effect of prison clothing and

visible shackling. Defendants assert that Defendant Duran should not be presented to the jury in a

worse light than the circumstances require and that there is no evidence that Duran poses any danger

to those in the courtroom, that he is likely to escape or that he will engage in disruptive behavior.

Defendants’ motion in limine to permit Defendant Duran to appear at trial in civilian clothing

is GRANTED. However, the Court DEFERS ruling on Defendants’ motion in limine requesting that

Defendant Duran appear without restraints. The Court will address this request on the first day of

trial. 

3. Motion in Limine to Preclude All References to the Dismissal of the State

Criminal Charges Against Plaintiff (ECF No. 215)

Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence at trial that the charges

against him for assaulting officers Duran and Gamboa were dismissed by the prosecution for

insufficient evidence. Although the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to introduce the Kings County

Superior Court minute order, he is not precluded from presenting testimonythat chargeswere brough

and dropped without further detail. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude all

references to the dismissal of the state criminal charges against Plaintiff is DENIED. 

4. Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff from Suggesting to the Jury that

Defendants Engaged in Discovery Abuses (ECF No. 216)

Defendants request that Plaintiff be precluded from making references at trial to any

purportedly missing or undisclosed evidence, or to suggest to the jury that Defendants engaged in

discovery abuse in this case. Defendants anticipate such arguments from Plaintiff based on

allegations in his pretrial statement that Defendants failed to disclose certain documents. Evidence

of discovery disputes between the parties or reference to whether Defendants’ production complied

3

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 262 Filed 01/16/13 Page 3 of 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

with the rules governing discovery are not relevant to the question of excessive force. Fed. R. Evid.

401. 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion in limine. However, at the hearing Plaintiff

raised concerns regarding the spoilation of evidence after the alleged incident. Neitherthe purported

spoilation of evidence nor any discovery issues are properly before the Court. Further, there is no

indication that Plaintiff’s allegations of spoilation, including the chain of custody of his clothes, are

somehow attributable to Defendants. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from suggesting to the jury

that Defendants engaged in discovery abuses is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 15, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 262 Filed 01/16/13 Page 4 of 4