1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAVONTAE VALENTINE, Case No. 22-cv-01520-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE 9 v. NO. 1 AND GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE 10 TORRES-QUEZADA, et al., NO. 2 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 89, 93 11

12 13 At trial, Plaintiff seeks to introduce testimony about gang culture and prison politics for a 14 limited purpose but moves in limine to exclude any evidence gang affiliation as character 15 evidence. Defendants do not intend to use evidence of gang membership as character evidence. 16 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as moot. 17 Defendants move in limine to exclude all testimony on gang culture or prison politics. The 18 Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s use-of-force expert from providing an 19 opinion on those topics on the basis that it would not assist the trier of fact. (See Dkt. No. 85.) 20 The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, the record in this 21 case, as well as the parties’ arguments at the pre-trial conference. For the reasons that follow, the 22 Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion, in part. 23 Plaintiff argues that evidence about gang culture and prison politics is relevant to explain 24 why he did not immediately comply with Defendants’ directives to get down. In order to 25 determine if any Defendant used excessive force on Plaintiff, a jury may consider: “(1) the extent 26 of injury suffered by an inmate; (2) the need for application of force; (3) the relationship between 27 that need and the amount of force used; (4) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible 1 Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff argues evidence of gang culture and 2 racial politics would be relevant to the second and fourth factors. (See Opp. to Def. MIL No. 2 at 3 2:1-2.) 4 It is undisputed that Defendants did not know who Plaintiff was on the date of the incident 5 and, thus, did not know whether or not Plaintiff was affiliated with a gang. The Court will exclude 6 evidence of “gang culture” on the basis that any probative value it may have would be 7 substantially outweighed by the potential to confuse the jurors and cause undue delay. 8 The fact that Plaintiff failed to comply with Defendants’ instructions is relevant, but 9 Plaintiff’s motivation for not complying with those orders is not. Cf. White v. Roper,

(9th Cir. 1990) (affirming grant of summary judgment and noting that notwithstanding 11 plaintiff’s motivations, his refusal to comply with orders “created a need for [the defendants] to 12 apply reasonable force to control him”). 13 Although Defendants did not know who Plaintiff was, they have not argued they were 14 unaware of his race. There is testimony in the record from Defendant Reyes that “[d]uring an 15 altercation,” there are dangers associated with an inmate being near a group of inmates of a 16 different racial background. (Dkt. Nos. 105, 105-1, Declaration of Rodolfo Rivera Aquino, ¶ 2, 17 Ex. 1 (Deposition of Manuel Reyes-Diaz at 119:21-25).) Therefore, the Court concludes that 18 Plaintiff’s explanation for why he moved would be relevant to whether a Defendants’ perception 19 of those actions would be reasonable. Plaintiff may testify about why he did not immediately 20 comply with the Defendants’ orders on that day but may not testify about gang culture or prison 21 politics in general. In addition, the Court will not preclude Plaintiff from examining the 22 Defendants about whether Plaintiff’s actions on that date would have posed more or less of a 23 security risk in light of the circumstances. See, e.g., Taylor v. Keurtson, No. 19-cv-0450 TLN 24 KJN P,

, at *10-13 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2020), report and recommendation adopted 25

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020) (granting motion for summary judgment and 26 concluding defendants did not use excessive force, in part, because plaintiff failed to contradict 27 defendant’s evidence that his “behavior posed a security risk because it could incite other inmates 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, Defendants’ 2 || motion in limine no. 2. In light of the Court’s ruling excluding evidence of gang membership, the 3 Court will not question jurors about their views on gang membership during voir dire and will not 4 || include Plaintiff's proposed question on that topic in the juror questionnaire. Plaintiff may submit 5 one additional question to be included in the Juror survey by no later than 10:00 a.m. on August 6 || 30, 2024. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7) 8 || Dated: August 28, 2024 ( | ¥ te JEFEREY/S./WHIT 10 United Sf, jte$ Distr Judge 11 as 12

13 «14

16

17

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28