United States District Court, D. Colorado
THE ESTATE OF JOHN PATRICK WALTER, by and through its personal representative, DESIREE' Y. KLODNICKI, Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF FREMONT; ALLEN COOPER, in his official capacity as Fremont County Sheriff; JAMES BEICKER, individually; TY MARTIN, individually; and JOHN RANKIN, individually, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN
LIMINE
William J. Martinez United States District Judge.
By way
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this lawsuit addresses whether John
Patrick Walter (“Walter”) received
unconstitutionally deficient medical care while in pretrial
detention in Fremont County, Colorado, eventually causing his
death. Specifically, Walter was deprived of a prescription
anti-anxiety medication (Klonopin), allegedly creating severe
withdrawal symptoms that eventually killed him. Walter's
Estate, through its personal representative
(“Estate” or “Plaintiff”), originally
sued numerous individuals and entities, but has now dismissed
all defendants save for Fremont County (through its board of
commissioners), Sheriff Allen Cooper (in his official
capacity only), former sheriff James Beicker (in his
individual capacity only), former undersheriff Ty Martin, and
detention center commander John Rankin (together,
“Defendants”).
Currently
before the Court is Defendants' Joint Motion in
Limine. (ECF No. 251.) It is captioned as
“Joint” because it encompassed all defendants who
had not been dismissed as of the date of its filing,
September 25, 2018. Following its filing, the Estate
dismissed several parties, leaving only Defendants. The Court
therefore ordered the Estate to file an amended response to
the motion, making clear which issues remain in controversy
and which are moot in light of the settlement. (ECF No. 295
at 6.) Having received the Estate's amended response (ECF
No. 296), the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons
explained below, the Court grants the motion in part, denies
it in part, and denies it without prejudice in part.
I.
ANALYSIS
A.
Evidence of Inadequate Investigation
Defendants
first argue that the Estate
intends to introduce evidence in the form of testimony and
exhibits to the effect that the Fremont County Sheriff's
investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Walter's
death was cursory or otherwise inadequate. The Court should
exclude any such evidence because it is not relevant to any
of the [Estate's] claims.
(ECF No. 251 at 3.) The Court disagrees. The Estate must
prove that Defendants possessed a deliberately indifferent
state of mind. Evidence about how they reacted to
Walter's death is probative of that state of mind.
See Grandstaff v. City of Borger, 767 F.2d 161, 171
(5th Cir. 1985). Defendants' case law that supposedly
counsels to the contrary-Durkee v. Minor, 841 F.3d
872, 877 (10th Cir. 2016), Bryson v. City of Oklahoma
City, 627 F.3d 784, 789-90 (10th Cir. 2010), and
Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F.3d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir.
2009)-affirms exclusion of this kind of evidence when
presented as evidence of causation, reasoning that
post-event actions, by definition, have no tendency to prove
the cause of an event. That is a separate question from
whether post-event actions can shed light on the actors'
state of mind during the event. Plainly, they can. The Court
therefore denies this portion of Defendants' Motion
in Limine.
That
said, the Court notes the possibility that lay
jurors may not be able to judge for themselves whether a
post-incident investigation of a medical matter at a county
jail was adequate. In other words, depending on the evidence
the Estate intends to present, it may be that a lay juror has
no common experience to which he or she can compare the
investigation, and therefore no basis to properly judge any
Defendant's state of mind based on his acts or omissions
during the investigation. Without prejudging the issue, then,
the Court notes the potential need for expert testimony to
lay a proper foundation.
B.
Other Inmates' Medical Care
Defendants
note that the Estate plans to call three former inmates at
the Fremont County Jail for purposes of testifying about
their experience receiving medical care at the jail,
presumably to persuade the jury that the jail routinely
provided inadequate medical care. (ECF No. 251 at 4.)
Defendants argue that this should not be permitted because,
at a minimum, it “would create the necessity for
multiple ‘mini-trials' within the trial which
[would be] misleading, confusing, and would be a waste of
time.” (Id. at 4-5.)
The
Estate's entire response is as follows:
Defendants' request to exclude evidence of “other
inmates' medical care” is vague. In any event,
Defendants ignore discussion of the all-important
Monell claims, which are supported by evidence of
widespread practices. There will be no mini-trials, for the
Estate's proof is concise: jail personnel and ...