United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
JOHN W. DEGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
the Court is defendant Andre Riley's (“Riley”
or “Defendant”) Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence and Testimony. (Doc. 77.) It is opposed by
plaintiff Jawaan Chevalier (“Plaintiff” or
“Chevalier”). (Doc. 83.) For the following
reasons, the motion is granted in part, denied in part and
deferred in part.
the Court notes that Defendant has not followed the
Court's local rule to consult with opposing counsel in
advance of filing a motion in limine in order to attempt to
avoid filing such a motion, in whole or in
part. Defense counsel is instructed to be
familiar with this rule and abide by it in the future.
Nonetheless, the Court will consider Defendant's motion.
seeks to preclude the admission of the following exhibits
Any and All Unexhausted Claims
seems to suggest that claims for “emotional and mental
distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment and
loss of employment opportunities; medical, hospital and
pharmaceutical bills and services[, ] past, present, and
future; inconvenience; and lost wages” are
“unexhausted claims” and not damages which are
recoverable in a 1983 excessive force case. (Doc. 77-1 at
1-2.) No legal authority is given for this proposition and no
factual authority is given to support Defendant's
contention that the claim for these items is
“unexhausted.” Without more, this part of the
motion is denied.
Evidence or Testimony regarding Defendant's Personnel
Records and Disciplinary History
argues that prior bad acts are inadmissible and, as a general
rule, Defendant is correct. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). However,
Defendant has provided no specific document or piece of
testimony which he wishes to exclude. In his opposition,
Plaintiff attaches documents showing that Defendant was fired
from his position at Elayn Hunt for conduct arguably similar
to that alleged in this case. (Doc. 83-1 at 1-14.) These
documents show that Defendant appealed his firing and
ultimately resigned in order to avoid being fired.
Court is unable, based on the documents presented, to
determine whether the incident is sufficiently similar to
that of the conduct alleged to have taken place in this case
to be admitted. The Court will hear evidence and argument on
this issue at the status conference to be held on the morning
of trial before jury selection. This part of Defendant's
motion is deferred. See Mack v. Benjamin, No.
13-552, 2015 WL 7313869, at *1 (M.D. La. Nov. 20, 2015).
Testimony of Inmate Lonnie Bryant
argues that Mr. Bryant was not present and did not witness
the incident and was not housed with the plaintiff after the
incident. Therefore, argues Defendant, Bryant has nothing to
offer that is relevant. Furthermore, Bryant was in a separate
incident with Defendant, and Defendant is fearful he will be
questioned about the events surrounding that incident, which
apparent from documents provided by Plaintiff (Doc. 83-1 at
1-14) that Bryant was involved in the incident that got
Defendant fired. However, it is impossible, in advance of
trial, to rule on the admissibility of any possible evidence
Bryant may have. Needless to say, he will not be allowed to
give speculative or irrelevant testimony. The Court will hear
evidence and argument on this issue at the status conference
to be held on the morning of trial before jury selection.
Testimony of Nedra Chevalier
Chevalier is either Plaintiff's wife or mother. According
to Plaintiff, she will be able to testify regarding injuries
she observed on Plaintiff. (Doc. 83 at 7.) Based on this