Wesley Cotton v. Medina, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedNovember 18, 2025
Docket1:22-cv-00568
StatusUnknown

This text of Wesley Cotton v. Medina, et al. (Wesley Cotton v. Medina, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wesley Cotton v. Medina, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESLEY COTTON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00568 JLT EPG 12 Plaintiff, PRETRIAL ORDER1; ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINES, MOTION FOR 13 v. SANCTIONS AND OVERRULING FORMAL OBJECTION 14 MEDINA, et al., (Docs. 176, 177, 178, 179) 15 Defendants. Deadlines: Motions in Limine Filing: 1/5/2026 Oppositions to Motions in Limine: 1/12/2026 16 Trial Submissions: 1/13/2026 Jury trial: 1/27/2026 at 8:30 a.m., 2-4 days 17 18 On November 17, 2025, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference in this action via 19 Zoom. (See Doc. 134.) Wesley Cotton appeared pro se and David E. Kuchinsky appeared as counsel 20 for Defendant. Having considered the parties’ pretrial statements, (Docs. 172, 173), the Court issues 21 this tentative pretrial order. 22 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 23 24 1 Plaintiff takes exception to the “late filing” of the defendant’s pretrial statement. (Doc. 179) However, the defense statement was filed on the same day as plaintiff’s statement, September 30, 2025. (See Docs. 172, 173) 25 Thus, the motion (Doc. 179) is DENIED. Moreover, though Plaintiff indicates that if his trial does not proceed as scheduled, he will view it as “unfair.” At this time, the Court cannot assure him that it will proceed as 26 scheduled. Because criminal cases are required by the Constitution to have priority, and the Court prioritizes older cases over newer ones, whether this trial will proceed as currently scheduled is unknown 27 and will remain unknown until the date approaches. Unfortunately, there is no constitutional guarantee that a civil case, such as this one, proceed in any particular timeframe. The only way to assure that the 28 trial will proceed as scheduled is to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction—as this Court has 1 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. 172.) This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against 2 Corcoran State Prison Sergeant Medina for failure to protect. (Doc. 173.) Generally, this claim alleges 3 that Defendant Medina failed to protect Plaintiff from exposure to oleoresin capsicum (“OC”) on 4 March 19, 2022, at California State Prison in Corcoran, California. (Id.) 5 A. JURISDICTION / VENUE 6 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and § 1343 because 7 Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law. The events that gave rise to this action occurred at the 8 California State Prison in Corcoran, California. Accordingly, venue is proper in the United States 9 District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 10 B. JURY TRIAL 11 All parties demanded a jury trial in this matter. (Doc. 1, p.1; Doc. 23, p. 7). The jury will 12 consist of eight jurors. 13 C. UNDISPUTED FACTS2 14 I. Plaintiff 15 1. Plaintiff was located at 3B Yard on March 19, 2022. 16 2. Chemical Agents were deployed by staff in an adjacent area, Yard 3C. 17 3. Defendant was assigned to work at 3B Yard on March 19, 2022. 18 II. Defendant 19 1. At all times relevant to this case, Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of California 20 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and was housed at California 21 State Prison, Corcoran, in Corcoran, California. 22 2. At all times relevant to this case, Defendant Medina was a correctional sergeant 23 employed by CDCR and assigned to Corcoran. 24 3. On March 19, 2022, at approximately 12:00 p.m., an incident occurred at Corcoran on 25 Yard 3C, in which officers deployed multiple chemical agents to stop a fight between 26 27

28 2 The parties submitted separate pretrial statements with their own statement of facts. The following is the 1 multiple third-party inmates. 2 4. At the time of the incident on March 19, 2022, Plaintiff was located at Facility 3B, a 3 separate area of the prison from Yard 3C, and was not involved in the Yard 3C 4 incident. 5 5. On March 19, 2022, Defendant Medina was assigned to work as the B program facility 6 sergeant. 7 6. Defendant Medina was not involved in the incident on Yard 3C on March 19, 2022. 8 D. DISPUTED FACTS 9 I. Plaintiff3 10 1. Medina refused to give aid during the incident on March 19, 2022. 11 2. Plaintiff was exposed and not decontaminated, nor given immediate medical aid. 12 II. Defendant 13 1. Defendant Medina did not have contact with Plaintiff on March 19, 2022. 14 2. Plaintiff was not exposed to OC in an amount that could cause him serious harm. 15 3. Defendant did not cause Plaintiff to be at risk of harm. 16 4. Defendant was not aware of any risk of harm to Plaintiff. 17 5. The nature and extent of any injuries Plaintiff sustained. 18 6. The nature and extent of any damages Plaintiff incurred. 19 E. DISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES 20 None offered. 21 F. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES / MOTIONS IN LIMINE 22 I. Plaintiff 23 1. Plaintiff has filed a motion in limine requesting an order: “(1) authorizing limited 24 demonstrative use of excerpts from peer-reviewed literature at trial; (2) permitting 25 Plaintiff to read into evidence, under FRE 803(18) learned treatise passages during the 26

27 3 Plaintiff did not provide a section in his pre-trial statement for disputed facts. (See Doc. 172). However, 28 several facts Plaintiff provides are disputed by Defendant. As such, the Court placed those specific facts in the 1 examination of any qualified witness; and (3) admitting Rule 1006 summary charts 2 derived from admissible government publications.” (Doc. 169.) 3 2. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Judicial Notice of Government Publications. (Doc. 4 168.) Plaintiff “moves the Court to take judicial notice of the existence and content of 5 the following government publications related to riot-control agents (CN/CS) 6 dispersion, exposure, and downwind hazard planning. These are self-authenticating 7 public records subject to the hearsay exception for public records and proper subjects of 8 judicial notice under FRE 201, 803(8), and 902(5).” (Doc. 168.) 9 3. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Strike Contreras Statements. (Doc. 170.) 10 4. Plaintiff has filed a Request for Judicial Notice of Docketed Orders/Filings and Order 11 Confirming Discovery is Closed. (Doc. 171.) 12 II. Defendant 13 1. Defendant intends to file motions in limine to preclude Plaintiff from testifying, 14 eliciting testimony, or introducing evidence of the following matters: (a) Plaintiff’s own 15 lay opinions regarding causation, diagnosis, or prognosis for any alleged injuries 16 Plaintiff claims are related to Defendant’s purported conduct; (b) any dismissed claims 17 or Defendant; (c) hearsay statements, and documents containing hearsay statements, 18 which Defendant anticipate Plaintiff may seek to introduce based on his previous 19 statements and filings in this case; (d) Defendant’s involvement in other lawsuits or 20 incidents alleging misconduct; (e) offers to compromise; and (f) CDCR’s 21 indemnification of an adverse judgment. 22 2. Defendant also intends to file a motion in limine to permit her to introduce evidence of 23 Plaintiff’s, and any incarcerated witness’s, felony convictions and sentences for 24 impeachment purposes. 25 The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish, in advance of the trial, that certain evidence 26 should not be offered at trial. “Although the Federal Rules of Evidence

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wesley Cotton v. Medina, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wesley-cotton-v-medina-et-al-caed-2025.