Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00689-36/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 Jean-Pierre K. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have completed 

discovery and the Court has decided all dispositive motions. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby sets a further schedule for this litigation. Upon 

consideration of the parties’ comments at hearing, the Parties’ pretrial statements and the file in this 

case, the Court ISSUES the Pretrial Order as follows. 

///

///

JEAN-PIERRE K. THOMAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-00689 - JLT (PC)

PRETRIAL ORDER

Deadlines:

Motion in Limine Filing: 6/28/13

Oppositions to Motions in Limine: 7/5/2013

Trial Submissions: 7/5/2013 

Jury Trial: 7/23/2013, 8:30 a.m., Bakersfield

(Doc. 1)

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 1 of 13
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

A. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this 

matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. In addition, Plaintiff’s claims arise out of events that 

occurred at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”), located in Delano, California. Thus, venue is proper 

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Bakersfield, 

California. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

B. JURY TRIAL 

Defendants also included a demand for jury trial in their answers. Accordingly, trial will be by 

jury. 

C. UNDISPUTED FACTS 

1. On October 5, 2006, Plaintiff was incarcerated at KVSP. 

2. On October 5, 2006, Defendants Garcia and Bonilla were correctional officers at KVSP.

3. On October 5, 2006, inmates in the “yard” at KVSP were ordered to get down in a prone 

position. 

4. On October 5, 2006, Defendants Garcia and Bonilla used force on Plaintiff. 

6. Following the incident on October 5, 2006, LVN Hankins medically examined Plaintiff and 

completed a medical report concerning Plaintiff’s injuries.

7. Subsequently, Plaintiff participated in a video-recorded interview concerning the use of 

force on October 5, 2006.

8. Plaintiff was disciplined as a result of the October 5, 2006, incident. 

D. DISPUTED FACTS 

All other facts are disputed. 

E. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 

1. Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Issues

Plaintiff does not list any disputed evidentiary issues. 

2. Defendants’ Evidentiary Issues

Defendants provide a boilerplate objection to any evidence submitted by Plaintiff based upon 

or containing inadmissible hearsay or evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent, and note 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 2 of 13
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

that they will file specific objections to testimony or exhibits after presented at trial. Defendants 

contest the admissibility of any written statements by inmates who are not present at trial. 

Additionally, Defendants intend to object to Plaintiff’s opinion testimony that pertains to any matter 

requiring medical expertise. Finally, Defendants will seek to impeach any incarcerated witness at trial 

by presenting evidence of their prior felony convictions, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609. 

F. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION 

None. 

G. RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff seeks compensatory, nominal and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00

and costs of suit. Plaintiff also requests a declaratory or injunctive relief to overturn the disciplinary 

action imposed by KSVP officials as a result of the October 5, 2006, incident. As Plaintiff does not 

plead a declaratory judgment action in his complaint, he may not seek this relief. Given that Plaintiff 

is not proceeding in forma pauperis and has incurred costs, he may seek recovery of costs. 

Defendants pray for judgment in their favor with Plaintiff taking nothing, and an award of attorney 

fees and costs. 

H. POINTS OF LAW 

1. Section 1983 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides a cause of action against any 

“person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the 

United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, 

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States.]” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To 

prove a violation of § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant deprived him of a 

constitutional or federal right, and (2) the defendant acted under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 1989). “A person 

deprives another of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative 

act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to 

do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 

(9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). In other words, there 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 3 of 13
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

must be an actual causal connection between the actions of each defendant and the alleged deprivation. 

See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). 

2. Eighth Amendment Excessive Force/Failure to Protect Claim 

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from the use of excessive physical force. Wilkins v. 

Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1178 (2010) (per curiam); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992). The 

core judicial inquiry is whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 

discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Wilkins, 130 S. Ct. at 1178 (quoting Hudson, 

503 U.S. at 7) (quotation marks omitted). 

Not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. Wilkins, 

130 S. Ct. at 1178 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) (quotation marks omitted). Necessarily excluded 

from constitutional recognition is the de minimis use of physical force, provided that the use of force

is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Wilkins, 130 S. Ct. at 1178 (quoting Hudson, 

503 U.S. at 9-10) (quotations marks omitted). In determining whether the use of force was wanton and 

unnecessary, courts may evaluate the extent of the prisoner’s injury, the need for application of force, 

the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by 

the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 

503 U.S. at 7 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

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. 

3. 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 

(2009). The jury must find that the defendant’s conduct is “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 (1986). See also Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513, 1518 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 4 of 13
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

I. ABANDONDED ISSUES 

None. 

J. 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). 

i. Plaintiff’s witnesses: 

1. M. Hankins, Licensed Vocational Nurse

2. Evelyan Thomas, M.D., Plaintiff’s mother and medical expert

3. Lindsay Thomas, Jr., Plaintiff’s father

4. Lovoyne Lee Macon, #-61214

5. Michael Key, Jr., T-77528

6. Damon Edward Moore J-52867

ii. Defendants’ witnesses1:

1. M. Garcia, Defendant

2. I. Bonilla, Defendant

3. D. Stebbins, Correctional Captain

4. M. Hankins, Licensed Vocational Nurse

5. E. Loscano, witness

6. Reynoso, Correctional Lieutenant

7. Dr. S. Lopez, Chief Medical Executive, Expert Witness

8. W. Adams, CCII, Expert Witness

 

1

Though Defendants named the custodian of records as a witness for Plaintiff’s CDCR Central and Medical files, the 

parties stipulated that the original documents may be introduced without need for an authenticating witness. However, 

other objections to this evidence are preserved. 

Defendants SHALL produce an authentic copy of the Central and Medical records identified by Plaintiff as his 

intended exhibits, for use at trial.

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 5 of 13
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

K. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES 

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). 

i. Plaintiff’s Exhibits2

1. Ex. A – CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence, dated 

Oct. 5, 2006, for Plaintiff; CDC Form 7230, Interdisciplinary Progress Note, dated Oct.

16, 2006, for Plaintiff

2. Ex. B – Notice of Lodging Exhibit D, Thomas v. Bonilla, Case No. 1:08-cv-689 (E.D. 

Cal.), Doc. 128, dated Nov. 19, 2009; Letter from Attorney Picciano to Plaintiff, dated 

Nov. 13, 2009

3. Ex. C – CDCR Form GA-22, Plaintiff’s Inmate Request for Interview, dated Oct. 6, 

2009; CDC Form 128G, Plaintiff’s Classification Chrono, dated Dec. 5, 2005; 

Defendant Bonilla’s response to Plaintiff’s request for production numbers 1 through 7, 

dated Sept. 28, 2009; CDCR Form 837-C, Crime Incident Report log no. VUD-FBP06-10-046 from Correctional Officer Scott, dated Sept. 5, 2006; CDCR Form 837-C, 

Crime Incident Report log no. KVP-FBP-06-10-0461 from Sgt. E. Loscano, dated Oct.

5, 2006

4. Ex. D – Plaintiff’s inmate appeal documents dated Oct. 15, 2006, Nov. 7, 2006, Feb.

21, 2007, March 20, 2007, and June 11, 2007; Docket entries for In re Jean-Pierre K. 

Thomas, California Court of Appeals 5

th Appellate District, Case No. F055510; 

Plaintiff’s Declaration in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

 

2

Plaintiff presents Exhibits A through R to his Pretrial Statement without expressly delineating which Exhibits he intends 

to use at trial. (Doc. 151). Plaintiff seemingly attaches the Exhibits in support of his undisputed and disputed facts. 

Nonetheless, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the documents attached are ones which Plaintiff intends to use at 

trial. Thus, the Court construes Exhibits A through R as Plaintiff’s trial exhibits. 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 6 of 13
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

Thomas v. Bonilla, Case No. 1:08-cv-689 (E.D. Cal.), Doc. 117 at 75-88, dated May 7, 

2012

5. Ex. E – Letter from the California Attorney General to Plaintiff, dated Jan. 9, 2007; 

Letter from the California Office of the Inspector General to Plaintiff, dated Feb. 16, 

2007; Letter from M. Overstreet, CDCR Division of Adult Institutions, to Plaintiff, 

dated Feb. 22, 2007

6. Ex. F – Plaintiff’s medical record from Burnette, O.D., dated March 22, 2012; 

Defendant Garcia’s response to Plaintiff’s request for production numbers 4 through 

26, dated August 15, 2011; Defendant Bonilla’s response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories

numbers 21 through 25, dated Oct. 27, 2009

7. Ex. G – CDCR Form 115-C, Plaintiff’s Rule Violation Report log no. FB-06-10-004, 

dated Nov. 6, 2006; Statement by Inmate Glover, dated Nov. 4, 2011; Statement by 

Inmate Michael Keys, Jr., dated Jan. 10, 2011; Report of Ken Sheppard, Director of 

Progressive Investigation

8. Ex. H – Order regarding request for subpoena, Thomas v. Bonilla, Case No. 1:08-cv689 (E.D. Cal.), Doc. 44, dated Sept. 8, 2010; Defendant Garcia’s response to 

Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories numbers 1 through 14, dated July of 2011

9. Ex. I – Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling discovery, Thomas v. Bonilla, Case 

No. 1:08-cv-689 (E.D. Cal.), Doc. 27, dated Jan. 13, 2010; Letter from California 

Senator Gloria McLeod to Evelyan Thomas, M.D., dated May 7, 2007; KVSP District 

Attorney Referral Status Report, No. KVP-FBP-06-10-0461, dated Oct. 5, 2006

10. Ex. J – Letter from Evelyan Thomas, M.D., to KVSP Warden Knowles, dated Nov. 27, 

2006; Defendant Garcia’s response to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents

numbers 1 through 23; CDC Form 7230, Plaintiff’s Interdisciplinary Progress Notes, 

dated Jan. 3, 2007, through March 30, 2007; CDCR Form 7362, Health Care Service 

Request Form, dated March 25, 2007 

11. Ex. K – CDCR Form 7243, Physician Request for Services, dated June 6, 2007; CDCR 

Form 7362, Plaintiff’s Health Care Services Request Form, dated July 5, 2007

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 7 of 13
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

12. Ex. L – Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, 

Thomas v. Bonilla, Case No. 1:08-cv-689 (E.D. Cal.), Doc. 120 at 3, dated June 8, 

2012; CDCR Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence for Defendant Bonilla, 

dated Oct. 5, 2011; CDCR Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence for

Defendant Garcia, dated Oct. 5, 2011

13. Ex. M – Defendant Garcia’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatory numbers 6 through 

10, dated Aug. 18, 2011; Plaintiff’s requests to admit directed toward Defendant 

Bonilla, dated Aug. 24, 2009; Defendant Garcia’s responses to Plaintiff’s second 

request for interrogatories, dated Nov. 14, 2011

14. Ex. N – Order denying motion to compel, Thomas v. Bonilla, Case No. 1:08-cv-689 

(E.D. Cal.), Doc. 41 at 1-2, dated Aug. 3, 2010; Order granting Defendant Bonilla’s 

Motion to Set Aside Admissions, Thomas v. Bonilla, Case No. 1:08-cv-689 (E.D. Cal.), 

Doc. 90, dated Sept. 28, 2011

15. Ex. O – Letter from Attorney Picciano to Plaintiff, dated Feb. 24, 2012; Complaint and 

docket report in Aubert v . Elijah, Case No. 1:07-cv-1629 (E.D. Cal.), dated Nov. 8, 

2007; Defendants’ privilege logs; Defendant Bonilla’s responses to Plaintiff’s 

interrogatories numbers 7 through 14

16. Ex. P – Defendant Bonilla’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, 

Thomas v. Bonilla, Case No. 1:08-cv-689 (E.D. Cal.), Doc. 58, dated Jan. 13, 2011

17. Ex. Q – Plaintiff’s sworn declaration, dated March 31, 2013; CDCR Form 22, 

Plaintiff’s Inmate Request for Interview, dated Feb. 13, 2013

18. Ex. R – Legal treatise entitled “Section 1983 – Excessive Force – Convicted Prisoner;” 

Letter from Fivecoat and With, court reporters, to Plaintiff dated February 24, 2012 

19. Ex. S - Plaintiff’s videotape interview conducted by Sgt. E. Loscano regarding the 

October 5, 2006 incident

ii. Defendants’ Exhibits 

1. CDCR Form 115, Rules Violation Report log no. FB-06-10-004, dated Oct. 5, 2006

2. CDCR Form 837, Crime Incident Report log no. FBP-07-04-0195, dated Oct 5, 2006

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 8 of 13
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

3. CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence dated October 5, 

2006 for Plaintiff

4. CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence dated October 5, 

2006 for Defendant Garcia

5. CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence dated October 5,

2006 for Defendant Bonilla

6. Videotape interview of Thomas conducted by Sgt. E. Loscano regarding the October 5,

2006 incident.

7. Relevant portions of Thomas’s prison medical records regarding the incident

8. CDCR Form 602, Inmate Appeal log no. KVSP-O-06-03380 filed by Plaintiff

regarding the October 5, 2006 incident.

9. Photographs of B Yard at KVSP, where the incident occurred.

10. A diagram of B Yard at KVSP, where the incident occurred.

11. Plaintiff’s Abstract of Judgment.

On or before June 28, 2013, each party shall provide the other with a copy of any exhibit not 

previously produced during discovery that the party intends to present at trial. In addition, the original 

and four copies of all trial exhibits, along with exhibit lists, shall be submitted to the Courtroom 

Deputy no later than July 12, 2013.

3

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

numbered sequentially beginning with 1 (e.g., PX-1, PX-2, etc.). Defendants’ exhibits shall be premarked with the prefix “DX” and lettered sequentially beginning with 500 (e.g., DX-500, DX-501, 

etc.). The Parties shall number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length. 

L. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS 

The following is a list of discovery documents – portions of depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions – that the parties expect to offer at trial. NO 

DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE 

ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER 

 

3 This includes the Original for the Courtroom Deputy, one copy for the Court, one copy for the court reporter, one copy 

for the witness stand, and one to retain for themselves.

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 9 of 13
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

SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local 

Rule 281(b)(12).

In addition to the discovery documents contained in Plaintiff’s Exhibits C, F, H, J, M, and O

above, Plaintiff requests that the transcripts of his deposition and the corrections he made to the 

deposition be available at the trial. (Doc. 151 at 19-20). Plaintiff is advised that the Court is in 

possession of Plaintiff’s February 13, 2012, deposition taken in Imperial, California. (Doc. 116).4 As 

Plaintiff identified this deposition in his pretrial statement, and Defendants reserve the right to offer 

the same into evidence, the parties may introduce this deposition, assuming no meritorious objections 

are presented. In addition, at trial, Plaintiff intends to rely upon Garcia’s amended response to 

Interrogatory # 9 and Garcia’s amended response to Request for Production of Documents Set One./

Defendants do not anticipate the use of any further discovery documents beyond Plaintiff’s 

February 13, 2012, deposition and its appended exhibits. 

M. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS 

1. Discovery.

The parties do not see any further discovery in this matter. 

2. Motions in Limine 

Any party may file motions in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in 

advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. Although the Federal Rules do 

not explicitly provide for the filing of motions in limine, the court has the inherent power to hear and 

decide such motions as a function of its duty to expeditiously manage trials by eliminating evidence 

that is clearly inadmissible for any purpose. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984); 

Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F. 3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court will 

grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party 

establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id. 

 

4

In addition to the deposition itself, Plaintiff also requests that the corrections he made to the deposition transcript be made 

available at trial. The corrections Plaintiff made to the deposition transcript, if any, have not been lodged with the Court. 

The Parties SHALL lodge Plaintiff’s corrections to the deposition, if any, with the Court on or before June 28, 2013. 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 10 of 13
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

All motions in limine must be served on the other party, and filed with the Court, by June 28, 

2013. The motion 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 the motion must be served on the other 

party, and filed with the Court, by July 5, 2013. The Court will decide all motions in limine upon the 

written submissions. The parties are reminded that they may still object to the introduction of evidence 

during trial. 

N. STIPULATIONS 

The parties have not agreed upon any stipulations at this time. 

O. AMENDMENTS/ DISMISSALS 

None at this time. 

P. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS 

Defendants do not anticipate, and Plaintiff does not mention, settlement of this matter.

Q. AGREED STATEMENT 

None. 

R. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

The Court will bifurcate the issue of punitive damages. If the jury finds that the Defendant is 

liable for punitive damages, the Court will conduct a second phase of trial on the amount of punitive 

damages. 

S. EXPERTS 

i. Plaintiff

a. Evelyn Thomas, M.D.

ii. Defendants

a. Dr. S. Lopez, Chief Medical Executive

b. W. Adams, CCII

T. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Given that Plaintiff is not 

proceeding in forma pauperis, he may, and does, seek recovery of costs. Defendants do not anticipate 

seeking attorneys’ fees, but request an award of costs should judgment issue in their favor.

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 11 of 13
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

U. TRIAL DATE/ ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL 

Jury trial is set for July 23, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston at the 

United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Trial is expected to last no longer 

than two to three days. 

V. TRIAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSIONS 

1. Trial Briefs 

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If any party 

wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so in accordance with Local Rule 285 and be filed on or before 

July 12, 2013.

2. Jury Voir Dire 

The parties are required to file their proposed voir dire questions, in accordance with Local 

Rule 162.1, on or before July 12, 2013.

3. 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 July 12, 2013. The Court 

will consider the parties’ statements but, as necessary, 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. 

4. Jury Instructions 

Defendants shall file proposed jury instructions as provided in Local Rule 163 on or before 

July 5, 2013. If Plaintiff also wishes to file proposed jury instructions or object to those proposed by 

Defendants, he must do so on or before July 12, 2013.

In selecting proposed instructions, the parties shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury 

Instructions to the extent possible. All jury instructions must be submitted in duplicate: One set will 

indicate which party proposes the instruction, with each instruction numbered or lettered, and 

containing citation of supporting authority, and the customary legend, i.e., “Given, Given as Modified, 

or Refused,” showing the Court’s action, with regard to each instruction. One set will be an exact 

duplicate of the first, except it will not contain any identification of the party offering the instruction or 

supporting authority or the customary legend of the Court's disposition. Defendants shall provide the 

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 12 of 13
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

Court with a copy of their proposed jury instructions via e-mail at JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov. If 

Plaintiff elects to file any proposed jury instructions, he may file those, as normal, under this case 

number with the Clerk of the Court. 

5. Verdict Form 

Defendants shall file a proposed verdict form as provided in Local Rule 163 on or before July

5, 2013. If Plaintiff also wishes to file a proposed verdict form or object to the one filed by 

Defendants, he must do so on or before July 12, 2012. 

W. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER 

Any party may, within 10 days after the date of service of this order, file and serve written 

objections to any of the provisions set forth in this order. Such objections shall clearly specify the 

requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions. 

X. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS 

None. 

Y. COMPLIANCE

Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. All parties and their 

counsel are subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default, for failure to fully comply 

with this order and its requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 170 Filed 06/11/13 Page 13 of 13