Horton v. Molina

Background

Michael J. Horton brings an excessive-force claim under the Eighth Amendment against Officer Molina. Horton alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison on September 3, 2015, Molina used excessive force while handcuffing him, breaking his elbow. Horton also alleges that Molina struck his head against a cell window while escorting him to his cell, causing a head laceration. Horton seeks monetary damages. Molina denies the allegations. The court held a pretrial conference on October 19, 2022.

Motions in Limine

A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented to the jury.

Defendant’s motions

The court ruled that evidence that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would indemnify Molina—meaning potentially pay an award entered against him—was not admissible to show that he acted wrongfully. The court also found that any relevance of the evidence to bias was outweighed by its risk of unfair prejudice.

The court denied Molina’s motion to exclude Horton’s testimony about his history of abuse. The court stated that Horton may testify that he was physically abused in the past, that the incident was similar to that abuse, and that the incident caused renewed trauma or made him more susceptible to trauma. Horton must limit the detail to what is needed to explain that susceptibility. The parties stipulated that Horton may discuss his history of depression and past self-harm, but he should not cite other specific medical diagnoses, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, when the testimony would be based on hearsay.

Plaintiff’s motions

The opinion states that Horton moved to exclude evidence of his prior convictions and related exhibits. The excerpt explains that Molina was unaware of Horton’s criminal and disciplinary history when the incident occurred, and that Molina should raise any claim that Horton opened the door to such evidence outside the jury’s presence before offering it.

The court granted Horton’s objection to evidence concerning his disciplinary history as a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison under the conditions proposed by Molina. Unless Horton opened the door and the court ruled that he had done so, Molina could not refer to Horton’s disciplinary history before or after the incident. Molina also could not elicit testimony about a “fight” or “restraints” that may have caused Horton’s 2017 injury, although he could discuss the fact that Horton suffered a later injury.

The court granted in part Horton’s motion to exclude evidence concerning the department’s investigation of his excessive-force complaint. The department’s conclusion that no excessive force occurred was inadmissible hearsay. Molina could use Horton’s videotaped statement as a statement of a party opponent, and Horton could similarly use statements made by Molina. The court reserved arguments about some investigative documents until after Horton responded to Molina’s supplemental briefing.

Expert testimony

The court considered motions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs whether expert testimony is relevant, reliable, and helpful to the jury. Neither Bradford Hansen, Horton’s expert, nor Scott Defoe, Molina’s expert, could testify about what the evidence showed as a factual matter. Each expert could assume facts for purposes of giving an opinion, but neither could tell the jury that a disputed fact was true.

Neither expert could give an opinion on the ultimate issue—whether Molina’s conduct violated Horton’s Eighth Amendment rights. The experts could use terms such as “excessive force,” “reasonable force,” or “necessary force” only when tying those terms to specific prison regulations or practices rather than to the legal standard the jury would apply.

Hansen could discuss regulations, best practices, and his correctional experience. Based on assumed facts, he could opine on whether a practice differed from regulations or best practices. He could also testify about his experience that he could not recall a corrections officer breaking an inmate’s elbow while placing the inmate in restraints. He could not testify about the factual events of September 3, 2015. The court excluded Hansen’s opinions about conditions and culture at Salinas Valley State Prison because their connection to Molina’s intent was too remote and could confuse or mislead the jury; the court noted that Horton did not bring a claim against the prison system based on an institution-wide policy or practice.

The court found Defoe qualified to testify based on his law-enforcement experience, some correctional experience, and correctional training. The court stated that the difference between Defoe’s experience and Hansen’s experience affected the weight of Defoe’s testimony—the importance the jury should give it—not whether it was admissible. Defoe could testify about best practices, de-escalation tactics, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations, and use-of-force techniques. He could also apply his experience to hypothetical situations using assumed facts. He could not testify about the factual events of September 3, 2015 or give an opinion about Molina’s training at the department.

Scheduling and disposition

The court scheduled the case for presentation to the jury on October 27, 2022. Each party received 7.5 hours for direct and cross-examination, and opening statements were limited to 30 minutes per side. The order states that it disposed of Docket Nos. 125, 126, 127, 139, 140, 146, 147, 148, 149, and 150. The order addressed pretrial evidence and trial management; it did not decide the merits of Horton’s excessive-force claim.