William A. White v. Robert Kenneth Decker, United States of America

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled on pretrial motions in William A. White's civil action against Robert Kenneth Decker and the United States. The court granted in part and denied in part the United States' motion in limine, granted White's motion for leave to file an overlength response, and denied Decker's motions to dismiss and to quash the writ for his appearance at trial. The order addresses evidentiary exclusions, Decker's pro se status, and the conditions for his appearance at the scheduled bench trial.

Holdings

1. Evidence or argument concerning unrelated alleged misconduct by the Bureau of Prisons, informant status, dismissed claims, or an unsupported broader conspiracy or bias theory was excluded because it was irrelevant, prejudicial, cumulative, or otherwise inadmissible under the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence.
2. White may not dispute at trial the disciplinary convictions for fighting with another person in Incident Reports 3597543 and 3556931 or the factual findings underlying those convictions.
3. Declarations, affidavits, and other written statements by persons who do not appear as witnesses may not be admitted to prove the truth of the matters asserted, but may be admissible for impeachment.
4. White may testify about his injuries based on his own perception, but may not offer opinion testimony requiring scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge under the guise of lay testimony.
5. Decker's motion to dismiss was denied, and his pro se status and inability to obtain recruited counsel did not warrant dismissal of the action.
6. Decker was not entitled to have the transport order quashed; if he remained in Bureau of Prisons custody, he was required to appear in person, although the court would permit video appearance if he were released and no longer near the court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether specified categories of evidence and argument should be excluded before the bench trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
2. Whether Decker's concerns about informant allegations, lack of recruited counsel, and objections to prior rulings warranted dismissal of the action.
3. Whether Decker should be excused from appearing in person at trial and permitted to appear by video because of a possible delay in his release from Bureau of Prisons custody.
4. Whether White should be permitted to file a response exceeding the ordinary page limit.

Disposition

other