United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE [ECF
Nos. 105 & 106]
Jesse Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
action is proceeding against Defendant Samuels for
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
matter is set for jury trial before the undersigned on August
2, 2016, at 8:30 a.m.
24, 2016, Defendant filed motions in limine. (ECF No. 105.
Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 5, 2016. (ECF No. 107.)
30, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions in limine. (ECF No. 106.)
Defendant filed an opposition on July 8, 2016. (ECF No. 110.)
Plaintiff filed a reply on July 22, 2016. (ECF No. 113.)
22, 2016, the Court held a telephonic motions in limine
hearing, and counsel Monica Anderson and Michelle Mayer
appeared on behalf of Defendant Samuels and Plaintiff
appeared pro se.
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 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).
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
objects to Defendant’s percipient witnesses: Sergeant
Nuckles, Officer Spurgeon, Lieutenant Sandoval, Officer
Williams, RN Camia, RN Suniga, and expert witness, William
Adams. Plaintiff objects the percipient witnesses because
Defendant has failed to offer any statements as to what these
witnesses will testify to, and Plaintiff contends these
witnesses have no actual personal knowledge of any relevant
motion must be denied. As an initial matter, there is no
requirement under the law that Defendant proffer a statement
as to what each percipient witness will testify to. Plaintiff
was only required to proffer a statement of each witness who
is incarcerated in state custody because of the need for
attempts to exclude testimony from percipient witness
Sergeant Nuckles, contending that because the Court indicated
in its ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment that Sergeant Nuckles’ review and subsequent
submission for a hearing of the Rules Violation Report (RVR)
Defendant issued to Plaintiff was not enough to overcome the
fact that Defendant May have independently issued the RVR in
to Plaintiff’s claim, the Court’s finding about
this particular fact establishes that there is a material
dispute, which is subject to determination by a jury.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine is DENIED. Plaintiff may
cross-examine Nuckles as to his credibility and his testimony
about his perceptions regarding the issuance of the RVR, and
make any relevance objections at trial, but Plaintiff is not
entitled to an order limiting such testimony in advance.
Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402.