WHITE v. DECKER et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
WILLIAM A WHITE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 1:22-cv-02405-TWP-TAB
)
ROBERT KENNETH DECKER, 	)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DECKER'S MOTIONS
AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT USA'S MOTION IN LIMINE
This matter is before the Court on numerous motions including the Defendant United States
of America's ("the United States") Motion in Limine, (Dkt. 321), Defendant Robert Decker's
("Decker") Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 351), and Plaintiff William White's ("White") Motion for
Leave to File a 31-Page Response, (Dkt. 355) and Decker's Motion to Quash Habeas Corpus Ad
Testificandum (Dkt. 364). For the reasons discussed below, the United States' motion in limine is
granted in part and denied in part, White's motion for leave to file a 31-page response is granted,
Decker's motion to dismiss and motion to quash are denied.
I. 	DISCUSSION
This case is scheduled for a bench trial beginning on Monday, June 29, 2026. The claims to be
tried are Plaintiff White's claim for damages against inmate Defendant Robert Decker who
committed assault and battery against him; and White's claim that Defendant United States was
negligent in placing him in a cellblock with Decker. In anticipation of trial, the parties have moved
the Court to rule on various evidentiary matters, which the Court addresses in turn.
Case 1:22-cv-02405-TWP-TAB Document 367 Filed 06/22/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
A. The United States of America's Motion in Limine and White's Motion for Leave to
File 31-page Response
Whites request for leave to file a 31-page response to the United States motion in limine
(Dkt. 355) is granted, and his Response at Dkt. 356 has been considered by the Court in issuing
this ruling.
"[J]udges have broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary questions during trial or before on
motions in limine." Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). Motions
in limine "perform[] a gatekeeping function and permit[] the trial judge to eliminate from further
consideration evidentiary submissions that clearly ought not be presented to the jury because they
clearly would be inadmissible for any purpose." Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Fam. Servs., 115
F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). Because this is a bench trial, motions in limine are not necessary to
prevent prejudicial evidence from being shown to the jury. See City of Joliet v. Mid-City Nat. Bank
of Chi., No. 05 C 6746, 2012 WL 5463792, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2012) (denying a motion in
limine because "Rule 403's concerns carry significantly less weigh in a bench trial, where there is
a presumption that the court is not improperly influenced by the evidence brought before it").
However, because both Plaintiff White and Defendant Decker are self-represented, the Court finds
a pretrial ruling on these evidentiary issues will assist parties in their presentations and for judicial
economy.
The movant [the United States] has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is
inadmissible on any relevant ground, for any purpose." Stewart v. Jackson, 2021 WL 1660976, at
*1 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 28, 2021) (internal quotation omitted). The Court excludes evidence on a motion
in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any purposes. See Hawthorne Partners
v. AT&T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting
Case 1:22-cv-02405-TWP-TAB Document 367 Filed 06/22/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
standard, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and
prejudice may be resolved in context. Id. at 1400-01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does
not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only
means that, at the pretrial stage, the court is unable to determine whether the evidence should be
excluded. Id. at 1401.
The legal standards concerning the motion in limine are as follows. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
probable than it would be without the evidence" and "the fact is of consequence in determining the
action." United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401). "Rule
402 provides the corollary that, with certain exceptions, "'[r]elevant evidence is admissible' and
'[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.'" Boros, 668 F.3d at 907. 	Under Rule 403, "[t]he court
may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue
delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 403; Boros,
668 F.3d at 909.
Federal Rule of Evidence 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." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Rule 404(b)(2) allows
evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act when it is used "for another purpose, such as proving
motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of
accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to
one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding
Case 1:22-cv-02405-TWP-TAB Document 367 Filed 06/22/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical,
or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Fed. R. Evid. 701.
In addition, the Evidence Rules make clear that hearsay is generally inadmissible at trial.
Fed. R. Evid. 802. Hearsay is a statement that the declarant does not make while testifying at the
current trial and that a party offers to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed.
R. Evid. 801(c). And a declarant is any person who makes the statement. Fed. Evid. R. 801(b).
Under these legal standards, the Court grants or denies the defendant, United States'
motions in limine as follows.
The United States of America's motion in limine, (Dkt. 321), is granted in part to the
extent the listed:
1. 	Evidence or Argument Regarding Any Unrelated Conduct or Unrelated
Allegations Against the United States, Its Agencies and Employees, and
Witnesses. Evidence of prior bad acts by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") is barred
by Fed. R. Evid. 401. Further, this evidence is inadmissible as irrelevant under Rule
403, and prior bad act evidence by BOP employees must be barred pursuant to Fed.
R. Evid. 404(b).
2. 	Evidence or Argument that Anyone is a Confidential or Federal Informant.
This information is irrelevant under Rules 402 and 403. Admission of this irrelevant
information is also dangerous and poses a risk of physical safety for confidential
informants.
3. 	Evidence or Argument Contrary to the Factual Findings Underlying White's
Disciplinary Sanctions for Incident Report Number 3597543 and for Incident
Report Number 3556931. Pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),
White's disciplinary convictions for fighting with another person contained in
Reports 	3597543 	and 	3556931 	and 	the 	factual 	findings 	underlying 	those
convictions are conclusively established and may not be disputed in this civil
action. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 at 648 (1997). Because this evidence is
inadmissible for any purpose, the Court excludes it from the trial under Rule 403.
4. 	Evidence or Argument Concerning all of White's Dismissed Claims Evidence
or Argument that the United States is Motivated by Prejudice/Bias/Hatred
Against Plaintiff for Conduct Unrelated to the Events Underlying this
Case 1:22-cv-02405-TWP-TAB Document 367 Filed 06/22/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Complaint. Testimony or argument regarding dismissed claims have no bearing on
the remaining negligent placement claim and is barred under Rules 401 and 403.
Such evidence would not have a tendency to make any fact relevant to the
resolution of White’s surviving claim, “more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence,” and it is therefore irrelevant under Rule 401. Exclusion is
also proper because the evidence would lead to undue delays, and a waste of time.
Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence related to harassment or a larger conspiracy by the
BOP is unfounded and barred as hearsay under Rule 802.
The United States of America's motion in limine, (Dkt. 321), is denied in part to the
extent the listed below:
5. 	Declarations, Affidavits, 	or 	Other 	Written 	Statements 	by 	Persons 	Not
Appearing as Witnesses. If offered to prove the truth of the matter, this evidence
is not permitted as hearsay under Rule 802 and 801(c). However, this might be
admissible if offered for impeachment purposes.
6. 	Unfounded Testimony or Argument as to Causation or the Continuing Effect
of White's Alleged Injuries. This evidence is not permitted if offered to it consists
of expert testimony under Rule 701. However, White may testify about his injuries
based on his own perception as long as his testimony is not based on scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge.
7. 	White Testifying or Arguing that He is Entitled to Recover Damages from the
United States for any Injuries Arising from His Negligent Placement Claim. The
Court rejects the United States argument that White's testimony should be barred
pursuant to his previous testimony where White contested being seriously injured,
this is more suitable for impeachment purposes than a motion in limine.
B. Decker's Motion to Dismiss
Decker has filed a motion to dismiss and an objection to the Court's previous rulings. (Dkt.
351). Decker argues that certain documents he requires for this case have been labeled "eyes only",
which necessitates appointment of pro bono counsel for him for the trial. Id. at 1. He also states
that this case must be dismissed in its entirety because White may falsely label him an informant
for the United States government at trial. He asks the Court to strike all of White's previous
pleadings. Id. at 2.
As to Decker's concern regarding claims that he is an informant, the Court addressed this
issue in this order in the ruling on the United States of America's motion in limine. That is, this
Case 1:22-cv-02405-TWP-TAB Document 367 Filed 06/22/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
information will not be discussed at trial because it is irrelevant. As to the appointment of counsel
on March 13, 2026, the Court granted Mr. Decker's motion to appoint counsel "to the extent that
the Court will attempt to recruit counsel for Mr. Decker. The Court will inform the parties when
the recruitment process is complete and whether recruitment has been successful" (Dkt. 285). The
effort was unsuccessful, in part because Decker is a difficult client and recruited counsel in this
district declined the assignment. The Court explained to Decker that it had been unable to find a
suitable volunteer attorney for this matter, and that Decker has filed many motions in this action
demonstrating his ability to advocate on his own behalf. (Dkt. 304). The Court pointed out,
Given the simple elements of the sole battery claim against Decker and considering
Decker's extensive experience in litigating on his own cases both in this district and
in federal court broadly, the Court finds that he is competent to represent himself
pro se at trial. That is, Decker should be able to examine and cross-examine White
and any other witness about the fight between them without the assistance of
counsel. See Decker v. Sireveld, 109 F.4th 975, 984−85 (7th Cir. 2024) (concluding
district court did not abuse its discretion by not recruiting counsel despite Decker
having nine pending cases and being housed in a Special Housing Unit).
Id. at 2. Simply stated, the Court is not required to appoint Decker counsel, and does his pro se
status warrant dismissal of this matter.
Decker also states that he objects to the Court’s rulings, but it is not entirely clear what he
is objecting to or whether he objects broadly to the trial moving forward. Regardless, his motion
to dismiss is frivolous and made to delay the trial in this matter. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss
(Dkt. 351) is denied. Further, his omnibus objection to the Court's previous rulings is overruled.
C. Motion to Quash
Finally, Decker has filed a motion to quash habeas corpus ad testificandum, (Dkt. 364), in
which he requests that the Court vacate his transfer order to appear in person for the bench trial,
and allow him to appear by video because it may delay his eventual release from BOP. At the final
pretrial conference, Decker expressed concerns regarding his ability to appear for trial if he was
Case 1:22-cv-02405-TWP-TAB Document 367 Filed 06/22/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
released from custody, and the Court allowed Decker to appear via video if he was released and
not within the vicinity of this Court. However, if Decker remains in BOP custody, he shall be
transported to the trial pursuant to the Court's previous order and appear for the proceedings in
person. As such, his motion is denied.
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained in this Order, Defendant The United States of America's motion
in limine, Dkt. [321], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant Robert
Decker's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. [351] is DENIED. Plaintiff William White's Motion for Leave
to File a 31-Page Response, Dkt. [355] is GRANTED. Defendant Decker's Motion to Quash
Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, Dkt. [364] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 6/22/2026
Distribution:
WILLIAM A. WHITE
323595
DELAWARE COUNTY JAIL
3100 S. TILLOTSON AVE., SUITE 150
MUNCIE, INDIANA 47302
ROBERT K. DECKER
173967
GRAYSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
320 SHAW STATION ROAD
LEITCHFIELD, KY 42754
WILLIAM A. WHITE
323595
DELAWARE COUNTY JAIL
All Electronically Registered Counsel
Case 1:22-cv-02405-TWP-TAB Document 367 Filed 06/22/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>