Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ivan Ray Carter, Jr v. A. Fernandez

April 4, 2012

IVAN RAY CARTER, JR.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. FERNANDEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Docs. 107, 108, and 126)

I. Plaintiff's Motions in Limine

A. Introduction

Plaintiff Ivan Ray Carter, Jr. is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint, filed on December 1, 2008, against Defendants A. Fernandez, R. Reynaga, and H. Carillo for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants L. Ceaser and D. Jones for failure to provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff's claims arise from events which occurred at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California on April 13, 2007, and this matter is set for jury trial on April 17, 2012.

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions in limine, filed on December 13, 2011, and on March 7, 2012. Defendants filed an opposition on March 28, 2012.

B. Motion to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any evidence from his prison central file which is irrelevant to his claims. (Doc. 108.)

"Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without evidence, and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action," Fed. R. Evid. 401, and "[r]elevant evidence is admissible unless" otherwise excluded under the law, Fed. R. Evid. 402. Thus, Plaintiff's general motion to exclude irrelevant evidence from his central file is denied as unnecessary. To the extent that Plaintiff believes specific evidence offered at trial is irrelevant, he may object at trial.

C. Motion to Exclude Conviction

Plaintiff also seeks to exclude any evidence of his criminal conviction. (Doc. 108.)

As discussed by Judge Beck during the trial confirmation hearing, Defendants may seek to introduce the fact of Plaintiff's felony conviction, and Defendants represented that they do not intend to introduce any details of Plaintiff's conviction offense. Plaintiff expressed his understanding of those concepts during the hearing.

Pursuant to Rule 609(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff's felony conviction is admissible to impeach his credibility. Defendants intend to introduce only the fact of Plaintiff's conviction and not the details underlying the conviction, and given that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and his legal claims in this action arose from events which occurred in prison, the fact of Plaintiff's felony conviction will be apparent to the jury. Under the circumstances, the fact, but not the details, of Plaintiff's conviction is admissible for the limited purpose of impeaching his credibility and Plaintiff's motion is denied. Fed. R. Evid. 403, 609(a)(1)(A).

D. Motion to Exclude Testimony of and Evidence Provided by Dr. Lopez

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any testimony by Sherry Lopez, Chief Medical Officer, and any evidence provided to Defendants by Dr. Lopez on the ground that it was "illegally obtained" because Plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.