Ducksworth, Brian v. Kinas, Austin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BRIAN A. DUCKSWORTH,
Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER
v.
23-cv-567-wmc
AUSTIN KINAS,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Brian A. Ducksworth, a state prisoner, alleges that defendant Correctional
Officer Austin Kinas retaliated and used excessive force against him by hitting him in the
head with a door to his cell while he was incarcerated at Jackson Correctional Institution.
The case is scheduled for a jury trial on February 23, 2026, with a final pretrial conference
by video scheduled for February 13 at 10 a.m. This order addresses the parties’ motions
in limine. Defendant has filed nineteen motions in limine in an omnibus motion.
OPINION
Defendant’s Motions in Limine
1. Exclude evidence regarding dismissed claims or summary judgment
Defendant seeks to exclude any evidence or argument from plaintiff that:
a) the June 10 cell search was retaliatory or unconstitutional;
b) the conduct report was invalid, fabricated, or issued in retaliation;
c) defendant destroyed plaintiff’s property during the search; or
d) institutional rules and property policies were violated during the search should be
excluded;
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 1 of 11

2
except for limited evidence necessary to establish that plaintiff filed inmate complaints and
the timing and general nature of defendant’s knowledge of those complaints.
This motion is GRANTED to the extent that both parties are prohibited from
discussing this court's summary judgment opinion or its dismissal of the retaliation claim
arising from the June 10 incident. The court RESERVES as to what limited evidence may
be relevant related to the June 10 search, and subsequent conduct report, and inmate
grievance, and will discuss this with the parties at the final pretrial conference.
2. Allow introduction of plaintiff’s conduct reports under Rule 608(b)
Defendant seeks to cross-examine plaintiff about two conduct reports in which prison
officials found he lied to them under Rule 608(b). Defendant argues that these reports are
probative of the plaintiff’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. This motion is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The conduct report arising from the June 10 cell
search will be admitted to the extent permissible under the Rules, as outlined in Motion 1.
The other conduct report for lying, which does not involve defendant, will be excluded, as
the conduct report adjudication has little probative value compared to its substantial
prejudicial effect.
3. Allow limited impeachment by evidence of criminal conviction
Defendant seeks an order allowing him to impeach plaintiff with evidence of the fact, date,
and number of plaintiff’s five felony convictions within the past ten years, without
identifying the underlying facts. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(l), this motion is
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 2 of 11

3
GRANTED provided defendant adheres to the single question proposed in the motion.
Defendant may only question plaintiff about the specific nature of the crimes of conviction
if plaintiff denies having been convicted of five felonies.
4. Allow limited cross-examination and evidence on plaintiff’s bias and
motive
This motion is DENIED in part and RESERVED in part as discussed below.
A. Financial Obligations
Defendant requests that the court admit evidence of plaintiff’s alleged financial obligations
for child support and his monetary demand as proof of his bias and motive to exaggerate
his claims for financial gain. This motion is DENIED as to this evidence under Rule 403,
since its potential to mislead the jury substantially outweighs its value in showing plaintiff’s
possible bias. All such references will be excluded.
B. June 10 Conduct Report
Defendant requests an order allowing him to testify that:
(1) he conducted a search of plaintiff’s cell on June 10, 2023;
(2) he issued Plaintiff a conduct report arising from that search for possession of
contraband and lying; and
(3) plaintiff thereafter filed inmate complaints about Kinas and ultimately brought
this lawsuit against Kinas.
Consistent with the ruling as to MIL # 1 above, the court RESERVES as to the extent the
parties may discuss relevant, admissible information related to the June 10 incident and
DENIES to the extent that this motion seeks to introduce evidence of the court's summary
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 3 of 11

4
judgment opinion or other dismissed claims.
5. Exclude unsupported medical diagnosis, expert opinions, and speculative
causation testimony
Defendant seeks to preclude plaintiff from presenting testimony or argument that he
suffered a concussion, traumatic brain injury, or other specific medical diagnosis, or that
he will require future medical care, unless such opinions are supported by admissible
evidence. While plaintiff may testify as to his own observations, experience, and
symptoms, as well as seek admission of relevant medical reports, plaintiff may not testify
as to what, if anything, he was told by medical staff about his condition at least for the
truth of the matter asserted. With this caveat, the motion is GRANTED.
6. Exclude any testimony that a medical provider told plaintiff he had a
concussion
Plaintiff stated multiple times in his summary judgment materials that Nurses McDonald
and Ender diagnosed him with a concussion, and defendant seeks to exclude such
statements as inadmissible hearsay and improper lay medical opinion. See Fed. R. Evid.
801–802, 701–702. Consistent with the court's ruling as to MIL #5 above, this motion is
redundant. However, plaintiff lists both McDonald and Ender as witnesses that he plans
to call. Unfortunately, he does not describe whether they would be voluntary or non-
voluntary witnesses, or whether he can pay for the fees associated with subpoenas of non-
voluntary witnesses. Because plaintiff does not appear to have made arrangements for
these witnesses to appear to testify, the court will RESERVE with the understanding that
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 4 of 11

5
plaintiff will be limited to medical records to show proof of possible concussion unless able
to call the treating nurses to testify.
7. Exclude declarations/affidavits as substantive evidence and to bar hearsay
testimony about the alleged statements of plaintiff’s former cellmate
Jonathan Cole
Plaintiff listed his former cellmate Jonathan Cole’s declaration as part of his exhibit list,
but he does not appear to have arranged for him to appear at trial. Defendant seeks to
exclude testimony as to what the cellmate allegedly observed or would say about relevant
events as hearsay under Rules 801–802. This motion is GRANTED, and the court will
exclude Cole’s declaration as inadmissible hearsay. If plaintiff would like Cole to testify,
he should notify the court immediately in order to make appropriate arrangements.
8. Enforce Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(i)
Defendant requests that the court order plaintiff to supplement his Rule 26(a)(3)
disclosures for the limited purpose of identifying whether he intends to testify. If Plaintiff
does not timely supplement, defendant requests that plaintiff be precluded under Rule
37(c)(1) from offering testimony or evidence not properly disclosed, including Plaintiff’s
own testimony. This motion is GRANTED except that plaintiff may testify himself.
Plaintiff must disclose all other witnesses he intends to call at trial.
9. Exclude testimony of racial motivation
Defendant asks the court to bar any references to racial bias, racial motivation, or racially
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 5 of 11

6
charged themes, because plaintiff’s claims do not include any allegations or elements of
racial bias. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. As there are no references to racial bias in plaintiff’s
claims, nor evidence of bias to the court's knowledge, this motion is GRANTED.
10. Bar requests for discovery, references to discovery disputes, or
suggestions of discovery noncompliance in the jury’s presence
Defendant asks the court to bar plaintiff from:
a) requesting production of documents or information during witness examinations
in the jury’s presence;
b) suggesting in any testimony or argument to the jury that defendant has
“hidden,” “withheld,” or “failed to produce” evidence; and
c) referencing discovery disputes or filings, including a previous motion to compel
video footage.
Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. This motion is GRANTED, and neither party may address
discovery disputes before the jury. All such remaining disputes, if any, will be addressed
by the court in advance of trial.
11. Bar references to violations of DOC policies as proof of constitutional
violation
Defendant argues that attempts to equate noncompliance with DOC policies and
procedures with a constitutional violation should be excluded as irrelevant and highly
prejudicial. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. Defendant also request that plaintiff be required to
raise the issue of whether a particular DOC policy is relevant and obtain a ruling outside
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 6 of 11

7
the presence of the jury before mentioning it. This motion is GRANTED to the extent
that the court will determine the relevance of any particular policy or procedure before it
is admitted. The motion is DENIED to the extent that defendant seeks to prohibit the
introduction of all DOC policies at the outset of trial, as some policies may be relevant for
the jury to consider in evaluating the objective reasonableness of defendant’s behavior,
rather than as direct proof of a constitutional violation. As to DOC Executive Directive
#43 referenced generally in this motion, the court agrees that the entire directive may not
be admissible, but will RESERVE as to whether some portion may be admissible with an
appropriate, cautionary instruction.
12. Exclude claims that correctional staff maintain a “Code of Silence”
Defendant argues that plaintiff should be barred from generalized accusations and themes
about DOC staff as a group, including any statements that staff maintain a “code of
silence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. This motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may only present
admissible evidence about events and statements specific to this case.
13. Exclude references to the prison system as corrupt, or prior, unrelated
employee misconduct
Defendant requests an order barring generalized “corruption” rhetoric, references to
unrelated incidents, other lawsuits, and references to other DOC employees’ alleged
misconduct that is not tied to the events and witnesses in this case. Okai v. Verfuth, 275
F.3d 606, 610–11 (7th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. Evid. 403. Because such references are not
relevant and may be highly prejudicial, this motion is GRANTED as well.
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 7 of 11

8
14. Exclude opinion testimony about the credibility of witnesses
Defendant requests an order barring plaintiff from:
a) testifying that defendant or any other witness “lied,” “made up” testimony,
or is “not credible” as an opinion; and
b) asking witnesses whether another witness was “lying” or “telling the truth.”
Fed. R. Evid. 602, 608, 701, 403. This motion is GRANTED. Neither party may offer
opinions as to the credibility of other witnesses, unless they certify that they comply with
Rule 608(a). Nonetheless, this ruling does not preclude closing argument by either party
as to which witnesses were most credible under the evidence presented.
15.A. Exclude evidence or argument regarding indemnification, costs, or
settlement
Defendant also requests an advance ruling precluding any mention in opening statements,
witness examinations, plaintiff’s testimony, or closing argument of who will pay any
judgment, whether the State will indemnify defendant, fees or litigation costs, or the details
or the existence of settlement communications or offers. Fed. R. Evid. 401–403, 408, 411.
This motion is GRANTED, unless defendant opens the door by intimating that he is
personally liable to pay such award..
15.B. Exclude references or comparisons to unrelated high-profile use of force
incidents and current events
Defendant moves for an order precluding plaintiff from referencing, invoking, or comparing
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 8 of 11

9
the events in this case to unrelated high-profile incidents involving alleged excessive force
or other current events involving law enforcement or government actors. This motion is
GRANTED as these other events are not relevant to this case, except for appeals to
common sense in closing arguments.
16. Exclude “golden rule” or sympathy arguments
Defendants argue that plaintiff should be prohibited from inviting jurors to decide the case
based on their sympathy, prejudice, or placing themselves in a party’s position. This
motion is GRANTED, and any appeals for jurors to depart from their position of neutrality
will be excluded.
17. Admit demonstrative video evidence
Defendant Kinas moves for an order permitting Defendant to use and publish to the jury
two demonstrative videos depicting the opening of the cell door at issue (Cell 113, Jackson
Correctional Institution) and the line-of-sight limitations from the door window, for the
limited purpose of illustrating witness testimony regarding the layout and mechanics of the
door. Defendant argues that any risk of confusion can be cured by a limiting instruction
and by restricting argument that the video represents the incident itself, and further states
that Kinas can testify that the video fairly and accurately depicts the cell door, the relevant
angles, and the basic mechanics shown, sufficiently to authenticate the video. The court
RESERVES ruling on this motion, and DIRECTS defendant to make sure that plaintiff is
able to view these videos in advance of the final pretrial conference.
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 9 of 11

10
18. Bar double recovery and for a unified compensatory damages instruction
Defendant moves for an order precluding plaintiff from seeking or arguing for duplicative
compensatory damages on the First Amendment retaliation claim and Eighth Amendment
excessive force claim where both claims arise from the same alleged door contact and the
same alleged injuries. Swanigan v. City of Chicago, 881 F.3d 577, 582 (7th Cir. 2018).
Defendant asks the court to instruct the jury accordingly and use a verdict form that
permits only a single compensatory award for his injuries, if any, proximately caused by
the door incident. This motion is GRANTED as to a bar for double recovery but
RESERVES as to the appropriateness of a so-called "unified compensation" instruction.
Instead, the court will propose liability and damages instructions, as appropriate for a
bifurcated trial.
19. Exclude “value of rights” arguments for damages
Defendant moves for an order precluding plaintiff from seeking, presenting evidence of, or
arguing for damages based on the abstract “value” or “importance” of constitutional rights,
separate from any actual injury proved to have been caused by defendant’s conduct.
Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 308–10 (1986). This motion is
GRANTED to extent that plaintiff is precluded from arguing for additional compensatory
damages based on some abstract valuation of his constitutional rights. To the extent that
defendant seeks to prevent a jury instruction on punitive damages, however, that motion
is DENIED.
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 10 of 11

11
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Ausitn Kinas’s motions in limine (dkt. #58) are
GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and RESERVED IN PART as set forth above.
Entered this 11th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:23-cv-00567-wmc Document #: 65 Filed: 02/11/26 Page 11 of 11