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.

Reynolds v. Lyerla

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 25, 2017

ANTHONY REYNOLDS, R10672, Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS LYERLA, CEDRIC McDONOUGH and LUCAS MAUE, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. 72) and Defendants' Motion in Limine (Doc. 73). Each will be addressed in turn.

         A. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine

         Plaintiff seeks to exclude five categories of evidence.

         a. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Prior Convictions.

         Plaintiff seeks to exclude any of his previous criminal record, including his prior convictions of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, armed habitual criminal, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and murder. Defendants object to Plaintiff's motion, arguing that Plaintiff is currently serving a 20 year sentence for being an armed habitual criminal and a 60 year sentence for murder with intent to kill/injure. Defendants argue that those convictions are admissible under FRE 609(b) and are not unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403.

         Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants may introduce evidence that Plaintiff is incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, an Illinois Department of Corrections Prison, for an extended period of time. The probative value of any additional information regarding Plaintiff's criminal convictions is substantially outweighed by the danger that it would be unfairly prejudicial. Defendants are therefore prohibited from introducing evidence regarding Plaintiff's specific convictions or the nature of the criminal offenses.

         b. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Witnesses Prior Convictions.

         Similarly, Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of prior convictions of Plaintiff's witnesses at trial. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion, noting that Plaintiff's witnesses (Christopher Scott, R31806, and Lemar Moore, R11046) are both currently incarcerated with IDOC. Scott is serving time for murder, armed robbery and residential burglary. Moore is serving time for murder.

         Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants may introduce evidence that Plaintiff's witnesses are incarcerated with the Illinois Department of Corrections for an extended period of time. The probative value of any additional information regarding their criminal convictions is substantially outweighed by the danger that it would be unfairly prejudicial. Defendants are therefore prohibited from introducing evidence regarding Plaintiff's witnesses' specific convictions or the nature of the criminal offenses.

         c. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Medical Records Not Relevant to the Excessive Force and Deliberate Indifference Claims.

         Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence consisting of Plaintiff's medical records that are not relevant to the excessive force used by Defendants on June 2, 2012, and the deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical condition subsequent to that date. Defendants ask the Court to reserve ruling on this issue, noting that Plaintiff has not specifically identified which medical records are (and are not) relevant to Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit. The Court agrees with Defendants and will reserve ruling on this issue. Parties should be prepared to discuss this motion at the final pretrial conference.

         d. Motion to Bar Any Witnesses Not Previously Disclosed.

         Defendants do not oppose this motion. However, Defendants state that they seek to bar Plaintiff's witness Lemar Moore from testifying at trial. Defendants assert that Moore was first disclosed as a witness in Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(3)(A) pretrial disclosures (see Doc. 75). The Court will reserve ruling on ...


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.