Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01500-19/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

John Fratus, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sergeant Peterson, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1500-ROS

ORDER

Plaintiff alleges that on July 12, 2006, Defendants Cortez, Hamilton, Luna, and Solano

used excessive force while escorting him to and from the exercise yard at California State

Prison–Corcoran. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Robertson failed to protect him from these

attacks. The case is scheduled for trial on January 7, 2013.

The parties filed numerous pretrial motions. On December 21, 2012, the Court held

a status hearing to address some of the motions and other pretrial issues. The following order

sets forth the Court’s conclusions regarding the pending motions and other pretrial issues.

I. Requests for Clarification (Doc. 93, 95)

Plaintiff filed two requests for clarification. First, Plaintiff seeks clarification

regarding the prisoner settlement program. Based on the parties’ settlement submissions, the

case was not selected for participation in the prisoner settlement program and the case must

proceed to trial. Second, Plaintiff seeks clarification regarding the appropriate mailing

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 125 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

address for submissions. Plaintiff has submitted information to the Court throughout this

litigation so he is already aware of the appropriate mailing address.

II. Requests for Subpoenas (Doc. 97, 115, 123)

Plaintiff filed three requests regarding subpoenas. In his first filing, Plaintiff stated

he wished “to call 5 non-inmate witnesses to [his] trial.” (Doc. 97). According to the

parties’ Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, those five witnesses are the named defendants. It is

not necessary for Plaintiff to subpoena these individuals. Instead, they will be ordered to

appear at trial. Square D Co. v. Breakers Unlimited, Inc., 2009 WL 1702078 (S.D. Ind. June

11, 2009) (it is unnecessary to subpoena a party to testify at trial because a court order

requiring attendance will suffice). Therefore, Plaintiff’s first motion for subpoenas will be

denied as unnecessary.

Plaintiff’s second and third motions for subpoenas state that in addition to the named

Defendants, Plaintiff also wishes to call the following six individuals: Lieutenant Callow,

Sergeant Swetich, Nurse Morales, Nurse Trovao, Psychiatric Technician Besse, and Dr.

Talisman. Plaintiff identified Lieutenant Callow, Sergeant Swetich, and Nurse Trovao in the

parties joint proposed pretrial order. (Doc. 104-1). Plaintiff has not explained why he did

not identify Nurse Morales, Psychiatriac Technician Besse, or Dr. Talisman in the joint

proposed pretrial order. Moreover, these three witnesses appear duplicative and unnecessary.

Therefore, Plaintiff will not be allowed to call Nurse Morales, Psychiatric Technician Besse,

or Dr. Talisman.

Plaintiff has not provided the witness fees necessary to secure the attendance of

Lieutenant Callow, Sergeant Swetich, or Nurse Trovao. At the December 21 status

conference, however, defense counsel indicated a willingness to produce these witnesses at

trial without Plaintiff tendering the fees provided these individuals are still employed by the

California Department of Corrections. If these individuals are not still employed by the

Department of Corrections, Plaintiff must submit the requisite witness fees. Defense counsel

will be ordered to inform Plaintiff whether he needs to tender the fees. If he does, defense

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 125 Filed 12/26/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

counsel should specify the total amount of fees Plaintiff must provide. After Plaintiff

submits the witness fees, the Marshals will serve the subpoenas and witness fees.

III. Modification to Pre-Trial Order (Doc. 100)

Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Modify the Court’s Proposed Pre-Trial Order.” (Doc.

100). According to that motion, Plaintiff wished to modify the proposed pre-trial order to

include “the relief that Plaintiff wants . . . the defenses claimed by the defendants . . . facts

that the parties stipulate to . . . issues of fact and questions of law that remain to be decide[d]

at trial . . . witnesses that each party will call . . . [and] exhibits that each party will

introduce.” (Doc. 100 at 1). The proposed pretrial order filed by the parties contains this

information, meaning Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as

moot.

IV. Motion in Limine Regarding Videotaped Statement (Doc. 102)

On July 18, 2006, Plaintiff made a videotaped statement regarding the July 12

incident. Plaintiff has moved to prevent Defendants from using that statement at trial.

According to Plaintiff, at the time of the statement “he was under duress, involuntarily doped

up on powerful antipsychotic drugs . . . coerced by threat of physical harm . . . as well as

criminal charges.” (Doc. 102 at 1-2). Defendants oppose the motion, claiming Plaintiff’s

concerns should go to the weight not admissibility of the videotape. Defendants are correct.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), the videotaped statement does not

qualify as hearsay. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff claims his statement should not be

believed for various reasons, he is free to argue that to the jury. There is not, however, any

basis to exclude the statement. 

V. Disciplinary Proceedings (Doc. 101, 96)

The parties filed separate motions regarding prison disciplinary proceedings initiated

against Plaintiff. Defendants seek to prevent Plaintiff from introducing evidence regarding

the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Plaintiff as a result of the July 12, 2006

incident. Plaintiff, however, wishes to allow evidence regarding the disciplinary hearing

stemming from the July 12, 2006 incident but prohibit evidence from any other disciplinary

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 125 Filed 12/26/12 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

hearing. It is unclear what relevance the disciplinary hearing regarding the July 12, 2006

incident would have to the present suit. It is also unclear how evidence regarding other

disciplinary proceedings would be relevant. The Court will reserve ruling on this issue until

the parties are better able to present the relevance of the disciplinary proceedings. 

VI. Defendants’ Motions in Limine

Defendants filed numerous motions in limine. One of those motions was addressed

in the previous section regarding the disciplinary proceedings at trial. The remaining

motions are addressed below.

1) Medical and Mental-Health Conditions

Defendants seek an order preventing Plaintiff from introducing into evidence “various

documents concerning his admission in to the psychiatric ward . . . , forced medication, and

medical treatment following the incident on July 12, 2006.” (Doc. 96 at 2). Defendants

believe Plaintiff should also be barred from “testifying about a purported conspiracy between

Defendants and medical staff” and about “whether his admission to the psychiatric ward and

subsequent court-ordered medication of psychotropic drugs was proper.” 

At the present time, it is unclear why Plaintiff believes any of this testimony would

be relevant. The Court will reserve ruling on this issue pending further explanation from

Plaintiff. At the final pretrial conference, Plaintiff must be prepared to explain how this

evidence is relevant to determining whether Defendants used excessive force against him and

whether Defendant Robertson failed to protect him.

2) Other Claims and Incidents

Defendants seek to prevent Plaintiff from referencing any other claims or incidents

beyond those which are the subject of this suit. In particular, Defendants want to prevent

Plaintiff from referencing Defendants’ involvement in other excessive force lawsuits.

Defendants’ request will be granted and Plaintiff will be limited to presenting evidence and

testimony regarding the events of July 12, 2006.

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 125 Filed 12/26/12 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

3) Offers to Compromise

Defendants wish to preclude Plaintiff from referencing any of the parties’ settlement

discussions. Federal Rule of Evidence 408 provides that offers to compromise are

inadmissible to prove “the validity or amount of a disputed claim.” Plaintiff has not

identified any permissible reason for introducing the parties’ settlement discussions, meaning

the motion will be granted.

4) Indemnification

Defendants believe Plaintiff should be prohibited from referencing “Defendants’

indemnification by the State or [Department of Corrections].” (Doc. 96 at 7). The fact of

indemnification is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the motion will be granted.

5) Felony Conviction

Defendants wish to introduce Plaintiff’s felony conviction. Plaintiff is currently

serving a twenty-five-years-to-life sentence for his 2005 conviction for assault with a

weapon. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609, the fact of Plaintiff’s conviction “must

be admitted, subject to Rule 403.” Based on the present record, and assuming Defendants

lay the proper foundation, the fact of Plaintiff’s conviction is admissible.

6) Narrative Testimony

Defendants seek to prevent Plaintiff from testifying in the narrative form. Instead,

Defendants believe Plaintiff should be “required to testify in a question-and-answer method.”

(Doc. 96 at 9). Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking permission to testify in the narrative form.

(Doc. 110). The question-and-answer format is more appropriate. Plaintiff will either be

questioned by his standby counsel or he will be required to write out the questions he will

ask himself. Plaintiff must be prepared to discuss this issue at the Final Pretrial Conference.

VII. Exhibits

The parties have filed separate lists of the exhibits they plan to introduce at trial.

Those lists appear to contain many of the same documents. In advance of the Final Pretrial

Conference, the parties will be required to submit a comprehensive list containing all the

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 125 Filed 12/26/12 Page 5 of 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

- 6 -

exhibits to be used at trial. That list should identify those exhibits the parties will stipulate

to and the specific objections to the remaining exhibits.

VIII. Jury Instructions

The parties have submitted competing sets of jury instructions. Absent compelling

circumstances, the Court will use the 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions. At the Final

Pretrial Conference, the parties must be prepared to discuss the circumstances justifying

variances from the model jury instructions.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Clarification (Doc. 93) is GRANTED IN PART.

This case was not selected for further settlement proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Clarification (Doc. 95) is DENIED

AS MOOT. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion in Limine (Doc. 96) is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Subpoenas (Doc. 97) is DENIED.

Each Defendant shall appear in-person for the trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion in Limine for Opening Statement (Doc.

99) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff will be permitted to make an opening statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Modify the Pre-Trial Order (Doc. 100)

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion in Limine to Suppress Videotape (Doc.

102) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Excuse Late Filing (Doc. 106) is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Introduce Admissible, Relevant,

Material Evidence (Doc. 109) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Correct/Clarify Error (Doc. 113) is

DENIED.

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 125 Filed 12/26/12 Page 6 of 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

- 7 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Writ (Doc. 115) is GRANTED IN

PART. No later than December 31, 2012, Defendants shall inform Plaintiff whether

Lieutenant Callow, Sergeant Swetich, and Nurse Trovao will be voluntarily produced. If

they will not, no later than December 31, 2012 Defendants shall provide the total amount

of fees Plaintiff must tender for the subpoenas to be issued to Lieutenant Callow, Sergeant

Swetich, and Nurse Trovao. No later than January 3, 2012 Plaintiff must then tender the

witness fees to the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than December 31, 2012 the parties shall file

a joint list of exhibits identifying the stipulated exhibits and the objections to each exhibit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Amend (Doc. 116) is DENIED as

untimely.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Settlement Conference (Doc. 120),

Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 122), and Motion for Subpoena (Doc. 123) are DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED the California Department of Corrections shall allow Plaintiff to

participate via telephone at the Final Pretrial Conference on January 3, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.

Arizona time.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the California Department of Corrections shall make

Plaintiff available for a telephonic conference with Donald A. Lancaster, Jr. prior to January

3, 2013 at a date and time selected by Mr. Lancaster. The telephonic conference shall be at

least two hours.

DATED this 26th day of December, 2012.

Case 1:08-cv-01500-ROS Document 125 Filed 12/26/12 Page 7 of 7