Hart v. Allen

• Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
• Decided: October 26, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00699
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RICHARD HART CIVIL ACTION VERSUS 21-CV-699-SDD-RLB MARCUS ALLEN

RULING

Before the Court is the Motion in Limine to Exclude To Exclude the Report and any Testimony of Lloyd Grafton.1 The Motion is opposed.2 For the following reasons, the Motion3 is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that DOC security officers, Captain Marcus Allen (“Allen”) and Major Ray Johnson (“Johnson”), employed unnecessary and excessive use of force on him causing him multiple injuries. The Plaintiff engaged Lloyd Grafton to provide opinion testimony on the use of force and whether the officer’s conduct violated DOC policies and procedures. II. LAW AND ANALYSIS Federal Rule of Evidence 702 guides the Court’s analysis. Movant does not challenge Grafton’s qualifications. Defendant argues that Grafton’s opinions are largely legal conclusions and otherwise invade the fact-finding role of the jury. The Court agrees. Mr. Grafton’s opines that the alleged conduct of the defendant officers was “unprofessional”

1 Rec. Doc. 42. 2 Rec. Doc. 43. 3 Rec. Doc. 42. and violated DOC regulations, that there was “no cause to take Mr. Hart into an area away from cameras”, and that the defendants “failed to properly document this event, which is a violation of the policies”.4 The Court finds that Mr. Grafton’s opinions are unnecessary to “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue”. As in other cases before the

Court Mr. Grafton’s opinions in this case “go to the ultimate question to be determined by the jury or are stated as legal conclusions.”5 Moreover, whether the alleged actions of the defendants were excessive or violative of DOC regulations are within the fact-finding purview of the jury.6 Just as in the Fetty7 case, in this case Mr. Grafton proposes to finds facts and draw legal conclusions regarding the reasonableness and necessity of Defendants’ purported conduct. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion in Limine [Rec. Doc. 42] to Exclude the Opinion Testimony of Lloyd Grafton be and is hereby GRANTED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 26, 2023.

S CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4 Rec. Doc. 42-2. 5 Jones v Lollis, CV 18-885, 2020 WL 3469105, at *2 (M.D. La. June 25, 2020). 6 Brown v. Strain, CV 09-2813, 2010 WL 3523026 (M.D. La. Aug. 31, 2010). 7 Fetty v. The City of Baton Rouge, 518 F. Supp. 3d 923 (M.D. La. 2021).