United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Castillo (“Plaintiff”) an inmate at the Cheshire
Correctional Institution (“Cheshire CI”), has
sued Sheryl Estrom, Jason Hogan, Allen Smith, Christopher
Johnson, Belinda Stewart, and Ricardo Ruiz (collectively
“Defendants”), corrections officials and medical
providers, for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs, and retaliation. Rev. Joint Trial Mem., ECF
No. 110; Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 35.
the jury trial beginning on April 22, 2019, both sides have
filed motions in limine .
Castillo moves to preclude Defendants from introducing
evidence concerning his and inmate witness Melendez's
criminal histories, prison disciplinary records, and
Department of Correction's security risk group
designations. Mot. in Limine to Exclude Pl. and
Inmate Witness' Crim. Records, Prison Disciplinary
Records, and Dep't of Corr. Security Affiliations at
Trial (“Pl. Mot.”), ECF No. 74.
move to exclude Plaintiffs Exhibits 25-27,  newspaper
articles and a Department of Correction's Auditors'
Report, as inadmissible. Mot. in Limine to Exclude
Pl. Exhibits 19-21 (“Def. Mot.”), ECF No. 76.
reasons below, Plaintiff's motion in limine, ECF
No. 74, is DENIED without prejudice to the
possibility of renewal at trial. Defendants' motion
in limine, ECF No. 76, also is
DENIED without prejudice to the possibility
of renewal at trial.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Castillo, an inmate in the custody of the Connecticut
Department of Correction, was, at all pertinent times,
incarcerated at Cheshire CI. Rev. Joint Trial Mem. at 3.
Defendants are correctional officials and medical providers
who are or were employed at Cheshire CI. Id.
Castillo asserts two causes of action against Defendants.
First, he alleges that Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Estrom and Ms. Stewart
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs
for a period of eighteen months in violation of the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Id.
Second, Mr. Castillo alleges that Mr. Johnson, Mr. Smith and
Mr. Hogan retaliated against him “for exercising his
Constitutional right to protection from being forced to
incriminate himself or another person in connection with a
State of Connecticut Department of Correction investigation,
” id. at 4, by denying him unnecessary medical
Ruiz, Ms. Estrom and Ms. Stewart argue that Mr. Castillo did
not suffer from a serious medical condition and that they
provided the medically indicated treatment. Id. Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hogan claim that they did not
prevent Mr. Castillo from receiving medical care.
Id. They allegedly “were in no way motivated
by [Mr. Castillo's] supposed lack of cooperation with the
[Connecticut Department of Correction's] investigation
into gang activity.” Id. In any event, all of
the Defendants assert an entitlement to qualified immunity.
August 14, 2014, Mr. Castillo filed his initial Complaint.
Compl., ECF No. 1.
January 26, 2015, the case was assigned to this Court. Order
of Transfer, ECF No. 7.
March 9, 2015, Mr. Castillo filed an Amended Complaint. Am.
Compl. ECF No. 10.
April 30, 2015, the Court issued an initial review order
dismissing two of the Defendants from the case, Warden Jon
Brighthaupt and Deputy Warden Powers and permitting the case
to proceed against the remaining Defendants. Initial Review
Order, ECF No. 11.
16, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Mot. to
Dismiss, ECF No. 15.
August 31, 2015, Mr. Castillo opposed the motion to dismiss.
Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 21.
February 22, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in
part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Ruling on Mot. to
Dismiss, ECF No. 27. The Court dismissed Mr. Castillo's
state law claims, but permitted his federal law claims to
proceed. Id. at 10.
31, 2016, Mr. Castillo filed his Second Amended Complaint.
Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 35.
November 16, 2016, Defendants answered the Second Amended