United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE [#136;
DENISE PAGE HOOD JUDGE
January 8, 2014, Plaintiff Brian Bonner
(“Bonner”) filed a pro se civil rights
Complaint against various government entities and officials
and a private citizen. (Doc # 1) All claims were dismissed
without prejudice except the allegations against Defendants
Romulus Police Department Officers Haynes
(“Haynes”) and Perkins (“Perkins”).
(Doc # 53) The Court appointed counsel to represent Bonner on
March 23, 3016. (Doc # 103) On April 20, 2016, Bonner filed a
First Amended Complaint against Haynes and Perkins alleging
violations of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc # 108) A jury trial is scheduled
for April 4, 2017. This matter is now before the Court on
several Motions in Limine filed by Defendants and Bonner.
(Doc # 136; Doc # 157) The Motions have been fully briefed.
asserts Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of his arrest and
subsequent detention on March 3, 2013. According to Bonner,
he arrived home that evening and saw assailants who looked
like they would cause him bodily harm. He fled and dove into
a nearby house through an open window to avoid being shot by
his assailants. Officers Haynes and Perkins reported to the
scene and arrested Bonner instead of arresting Bonner's
assailants, allowing them to escape. The officers handcuffed
Bonner, and Bonner complied with their commands.
Nevertheless, Haynes and Perkins repeatedly stomped, kicked,
and assaulted Bonner.
to Bonner, the officers then took him to the police
department and denied him water and medical attention even
though Bonner had hyperventilated. Bonner claims that Haynes
and Perkins were deliberately indifferent to Bonner's
serious medical need despite his plea to go to the hospital,
sense that he was about to have a seizure, and actually
having a seizure. Haynes and Perkins shoved Bonner into a
filthy cell where he was denied medical care and required to
lie down in his own urine, feces, and blood. Haynes and
Perkins recommended that Bonner be charged with a
“Burglary-Forced Entry” misdemeanor. The
following day, Bonner was taken to an arraignment hearing in
a pink gown and in a wheelchair. After the hearing, he was
transferred to Clinton County Jail where he was kept until
March 20, 2013 when he was released on his own recognizance.
The misdemeanor charge was dropped.
alleges that, as a result of Defendants' use of excessive
force and their failure to summon medical assistance when
requested by Bonner, Bonner now suffers from Lumbago spine
pain, sciatica pain, chronic back pain, pinched nerves,
muscle spasms, arthritis, mood disorder, paranoia, and
stipulate to the fact that Haynes and Perkins arrested Bonner
on March 3, 2013 and were acting under color of state law
when they did so. Otherwise, Defendants deny all of
Bonner's claims and allegations.
the instant Motions in Limine, Defendants seek to exclude
evidence of Defendants' past alleged misconduct or
disciplinary actions, as well as evidence of Romulus Police
Department's general orders, polices or procedures.
Bonner seeks to exclude reference to the name of Bonner's
past felony conviction.
Defendants' Motion to Exclude Evidence of Defendants'
Past Alleged Misconduct or Disciplinary Actions
seek to exclude evidence of Defendants' past alleged
misconduct or disciplinary actions because such evidence is
not relevant and would be more prejudicial than probative.
responds that he does not intend to offer such evidence as
exhibits but reserves the right to use such evidence for
impeachment at trial based on the testimony of each
401 of the Rules of Evidence defines relevant evidence as
evidence having “any tendency” to make a fact
that is of consequence to the determination of the action
“more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.” The standard set forth in Rule 401 is a
liberal one. Churchwell v. Bluegrass Marine, Inc.,
444 F.3d 898, 905 (6th Cir. 2006). “[E]ven if a
district court believes the evidence is insufficient to prove
the ultimate point for which it is offered, it may not
exclude the evidence if it has the slightest probative
worth.” United States v. Whittington, 455 F.3d
736, 738-39 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
404(b)(1) states that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or
other act is not admissible to prove a person's character
in order to show that on a particular occasion the person
acted in accordance with the character.” Rule 404(b)(2)
states that this “evidence may be admissible for
another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent,