Weeks v. Filighera et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER WEEKS,
Plaintiff, 	DECISION & ORDER
v. 	Case # 20-CV-6721-FPG
SGT. DAVID FILIGHERA, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed this action in federal court on September 16, 2020,
alleging, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that he was subjected to excessive force while he was
incarcerated at Collins Correctional Facility (“Collins”). ECF No. 1. Defendants answered, ECF
Nos. 6, 14, and the case proceeded to discovery, ECF Nos. 11, 17. 	After several extensions,
dispositive motions were due on March 9, 2022, and none were filed. At a status conference with
the parties in May 2022, the Court set the case for trial to commence on September 12, 2022. ECF
No. 35.
On August 17, 2022, Defendants filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude Plaintiff from
referencing a second incident of alleged excessive force on April 13, 2019. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff
filed a motion in limine on August 23, 2022, seeking to preclude Defendants from presenting
evidence pertaining to (1) qualified immunity; (2) Plaintiff’s disciplinary history; and (3)
Plaintiff’s criminal history. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff also requested that the Court instruct the jury
regarding the absence of video evidence of the excessive force incidents at trial, which Plaintiff
says existed but were never disclosed during exchange of discovery.
The Court heard oral argument on the motions on August 30, 2022. ECF No. 48. At that
time, the Court noted that it was unclear from the Complaint precisely when the alleged incidents
Case 6:20-cv-06721-FPG-CDH Document 51 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 4

2
of excessive force occurred, which incidents of excessive force are at issue, and which causes of
action are asserted against which Defendants.1 Because the parties exchanged limited discovery
and the parties did not file any motions for summary judgment, the Court found it exceedingly
difficult to parse the triable issues. 	Nevertheless, at oral argument, the Court ruled on several
aspects of Plaintiff’s motion in limine. 	It reserved on Defendant’s motion in limine and the
remaining aspects of Plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 48.
Due to the confusion regarding the facts of this case, and because Plaintiff was recently
taken into custody on separate charges and will be unavailable for trial for the next several months,
the Court adjourned the trial set to begin on September 12, 2022, and set a status conference for
November 9, 2022. 	ECF No. 50. 	The Court also encouraged the parties to file any dispositive
motions by November 9, 2022. Id.
This Decision and Order memorializes the Court’s August 30, 2022 rulings on the record
and addresses the aspects on which the Court reserved.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Defendants’ Motion In Limine (ECF No. 43)
The Complaint appears to reference two incidents of excessive force: one on April 13,
2019, and another two days later, on April 15, 2019. 	ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 26-38. 	According to the
parties, the incident on April 13, 2019, occurred around 8:00 p.m. Plaintiff seeks to admit records
at trial pertaining to what Defendants view as a second incident on April 13, 2019, at 11:10 p.m.
ECF No. 43. 	Defendants argue that any reference to an 11:10 p.m. incident contradicts the
Complaint and Plaintiff’s deposition testimony.
1 The Complaint only lists one cause of action—excessive force. But the Complaint references two dates of alleged
excessive force: April 13 and 15, 2019. And, in the body of the Complaint, Plaintiff refers to Defendant Filighera’s
failure to intervene to stop the use of excessive force. ECF No. 1 ¶ 29.
Case 6:20-cv-06721-FPG-CDH Document 51 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 4

3
The parties remain at odds over whether there were two incidents on April 13, 2019, or
whether both incidents were really part of one continuous use of force. The answer to this question
should be simple, but it is not, because the Complaint does not include the times of the alleged
use(s) of excessive force. The confusion is compounded because neither party filed a motion for
summary judgment, which would have helped to clear up the factual issues for trial.
Because the Court has given the parties an opportunity to refine the issues for trial by filing
motions for summary judgment by November 9, 2022, Defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No.
43), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
II. 	Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine (ECF No. 45)
The Court confirms the findings it made on the record at the August 30, 2022 conference
with respect to Plaintiff’s motion:
1. 	Plaintiff’s request that Defendants be precluded from offering evidence or
referencing their claimed entitlement to qualified immunity is DENIED AS
MOOT. Defendants indicated at the status conference that they did not intend to
raise qualified immunity at trial.
2. 	Plaintiff’s request that Defendants be precluded from offering evidence or referring
to Plaintiff’s disciplinary record is DENIED, subject to Plaintiff opening the door
for such evidence at trial.
3. 	Plaintiff’s request that Defendants be precluded from offering evidence or referring
to Plaintiff’s criminal convictions and presently pending criminal charges is
GRANTED insofar as Defendants may only ask whether Plaintiff was convicted of
a felony in connection to the criminal possession conviction. Defendants may not
ask about any of Plaintiff’s other charges, including those currently pending.
Case 6:20-cv-06721-FPG-CDH Document 51 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 4

4
The Court reserved on Plaintiff’s request that the jury be instructed regarding missing
logbooks and videos of the underlying use of force incidents. 	As set forth above, because the
Court has given the parties an opportunity to clarify the issues for trial, the Court DENIES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request for a jury instruction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion in limine, ECF No. 43, is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s motion in limine, ECF No. 45, is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART, as set forth above. 	Dispositive motions are due on or before November 9,
2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2022
Rochester, New York
________________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
United States District Judge
Western District of New York
Case 6:20-cv-06721-FPG-CDH Document 51 Filed 10/04/22 Page 4 of 4