United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Patricia T. Morris, Mag. Judge
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN
LIMINE  AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE 
E. LEVY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an excessive force case arising out of a traffic stop on May
13, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that on that date, he was riding
his motorcycle to his home in Alpena, Michigan, and that once
he arrived, defendant pushed him to the ground, beat his head
into the concrete floor of his garage, arrested him, slammed
a car door into his legs, and refused him medical attention.
(Dkt. 1 at 3.) Trial is set for August 23, 2017. Pending are
plaintiff's (Dkt. 22) and defendant's (Dkt. 23)
motions in limine.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
seeks to exclude the following information at trial:
1. His receipt of Social Security and Medicaid benefits since
2. Evidence of his two neck fusions and a knee injury
resulting from a 1991 accident where plaintiff was hit by a
car as a pedestrian, the accident itself, and the resulting
lawsuit arising from the accident.
3. A 1999 surgery for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma involving
his arms and neck.
4. An accident where plaintiff was on his bicycle and hit by
a police car when he was six years old.
5. Evidence that plaintiff was riding his motorcycle on May
23, 2014, with a learner's permit and without the
accompaniment of an authorized individual.
6. Evidence that plaintiff's son served prison time for a
7. Evidence of plaintiff having previously severed his right
thumb from his hand while working with cattle.
8. Evidence of the burning of plaintiff's eyes and
eyelids while working at a muffler shop.
9. Evidence of plaintiff's possession of a medical
10. Evidence regarding plaintiff's reasons for filing
11. Evidence regarding plaintiff's treatment for alcohol
addiction and his history of alcohol use.
12. The breathalyzer results from the test taken on the date
of the arrest.
13. Plaintiff's tattoos.
14. Evidence of plaintiff's criminal history.
has agreed to exclude significant portions of the information
outlined above. In light of this, the motion will be granted
as to the information defendant has already agreed to
exclude, including the lawsuit arising from the 1991 motor
vehicle accident, the accident from when plaintiff was six
months old, and the various portions of plaintiff's
criminal history ...