Cesar N. Hernandez v. A. Constable, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses several pro se plaintiff filings before trial in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court denies the plaintiff’s request to introduce prior summary-judgment orders, denies his untimely motion to strike affirmative defenses, denies as moot his objection to a substituted witness, and denies his request for a subpoena. The court grants his request for jury instructions.

Holdings

1. The court denied Plaintiff's request to introduce the court's prior summary-judgment orders as evidence because their inclusion would be irrelevant or, alternatively, would create a substantial risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury.
2. A motion to strike affirmative defenses raised in an answer must be filed within 21 days after service of the answer when a response to the answer is not allowed; Plaintiff's motion was untimely and was denied.
3. Plaintiff's objection to Elizabeth Campos being called as a trial witness was denied as moot because Defendants' updated trial witness list no longer identified her as a witness.
4. The court denied Plaintiff's request for a subpoena for Realious Cyprian because he was not listed in the final pretrial order and Plaintiff failed to make the showing required by that order for permitting an undisclosed witness to testify.
5. The court granted Plaintiff's request for jury instructions and stated that it would provide all parties with a copy of the civil jury instructions during trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court's prior summary-judgment orders were relevant and admissible as trial evidence.
2. Whether Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants' affirmative defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) was timely.
3. Whether Plaintiff's objection to Elizabeth Campos being called as a trial witness remained justiciable after Defendants removed her from their updated witness list.
4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a subpoena for a witness not identified in the final pretrial order.
5. Whether Plaintiff should receive copies of the civil jury instructions before trial.

Disposition

other