Jones v. Perez-Pantoja

Background

This order addresses the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial what evidence may be presented to the jury. Jones’s remaining claims allege that defendants Turingan and I. Perez-Pantoja retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment when: (1) Turingan refused to allow him to perform his porter work assignment in August 2020; (2) Perez-Pantoja ordered him to “lock up” on May 20, 2021; and (3) Turingan searched and trashed his cell and confiscated his earphones on July 10, 2021.

Joint Motions in Limine

The court granted the parties’ Motion in Limine Nos. 1 through 5.

1. California indemnification. The court excluded evidence that the State of California might pay a judgment or reimburse defendants. It found that the information was not relevant to Jones’s claims and could unfairly encourage a verdict against defendants.

2. Jones’s other lawsuits and grievances. The court excluded evidence of Jones’s prior complaints and references to his other lawsuits or administrative grievances. If Jones opened the subject by testifying about his history of filing grievances, defendants could introduce rebuttal evidence about those prior complaints.

3. Disciplinary history and alleged gang affiliation. The court excluded evidence of Jones’s prison disciplinary record and alleged gang affiliation. It found the evidence irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial and also treated the disciplinary record as inadmissible character evidence and hearsay. If Jones claimed to be a “model inmate” or denied gang affiliation, defendants could use some of this evidence for rebuttal or impeachment, subject to the circumstances at trial.

4. Other allegations against defendants. The court excluded evidence about defendants’ involvement in other lawsuits, claims, or incidents alleging misconduct involving other inmates, unless the subject was opened at trial. The court found those allegations irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial because they did not involve the facts of this case.

5. Separate punitive-damages phase. The court granted the request to separate the punitive-damages issue from the initial trial phase. If the jury found for Jones and found him entitled to punitive damages, the same jury would then decide the amount. The court also stated that evidence of defendants’ financial condition would not be relevant during the initial phase.

Shackling

The parties agreed that limited shackling was warranted based on Jones’s violent criminal history and lengthy sentence. The court granted the request after making the required individualized security determination. To reduce possible prejudice, it ordered that tablecloths cover the parties’ counsel tables so the shackles would not be visible to the jury, and that the jury be excused when Jones needed to move into, around, or out of the courtroom. The court also ordered that Jones be allowed to wear civilian clothes during trial.

Jones’s Motion Concerning Prior Convictions

Jones moved to exclude evidence of his 2002 criminal convictions. Defendants argued that the jury should be told that Jones had four felony convictions without being told the specific crimes. The court granted Jones’s motion, finding that the convictions’ prejudicial effect substantially outweighed their probative value. Neither side may introduce evidence of Jones’s prior convictions.

Defendants’ Motion Concerning the Work Assignment

Defendants moved to exclude evidence that they prevented Jones from participating in his work assignment except during the August 2020 incident and the May 20, 2021 incident. The court denied the motion.

The court agreed that the legal claims were limited to the three incidents previously identified. But it ruled that admissible evidence was not limited to those exact events. Evidence about whether defendants allowed or prohibited Jones from working on other days could help the jury evaluate what happened on the specific dates at issue. Evidence about defendants’ conduct between August 2020 and July 2021 could also help provide context and show their state of mind. The court found that the motion sought to exclude a broad category of evidence and that specific objections could be addressed during trial.

Disposition

The court granted the five joint motions in limine, granted Jones’s motion to exclude evidence of his prior convictions, and denied defendants’ motion concerning evidence about the work assignment. The order resolved evidentiary issues for trial; it did not decide the underlying retaliation claims.