The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALBERT E. MARTINEZ, :
Plaintiff : CIV. ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-1759
v. : (JUDGE MANNION)
JASON BERFIELD, et al., :
Defendants :
MEMORANDUM
This is a prisoner civil rights case that is scheduled for a jury trial on
July 20, 2026. Before the court are two motions in limine filed by defendants.
For the reason that follow, the first motion will be granted in part and denied
without prejudice in part, and the second motion will be denied without
prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Albert E. Martinez, was incarcerated in Camp Hill State
Correctional Institution (“SCI-Camp Hill”) at all relevant times. He filed this
case on September 25, 2020, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights during and after a five-day period when
he was placed in a “dry cell” based on suspicions that he was in possession
of contraband.1 (Doc. 1). The case was initially assigned to United States
District Judge Christopher C. Conner.
On September 26, 2024, Judge Conner granted defendants’ motion for
summary judgment as to all claims and defendants except for Martinez’s
Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Berfield and Evans, holding
that there were genuine issues of material fact on both whether Martinez
exhausted administrative remedies for the claim and the merits of the claim.
(Docs. 103-04). The case was reassigned to the undersigned on January 21,
2025, following Judge Conner’s retirement from the court.
This court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether
plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies in April 2025. After receiving
supplemental briefing from the parties, the court ruled in Martinez’s favor on
the issue of exhaustion and scheduled the case for trial. (Docs. 130-31). The
trial is scheduled to begin on July 20, 2026. (Doc. 134).
1 “A ‘dry cell’ is a cell that lacks water—all standing water has been
drained from the toilet, the room’s water supply has been shut off, and the
sink and toilet have been capped to prevent inmate access. An inmate may
be placed in a dry cell when prison staff have observed the inmate attempt
to ingest an item of contraband or they learn that the inmate is attempting to
introduce contraband into the prison. Dry cells are used to closely observe
the inmate until natural processes allow for the ingested contraband to be
retrieved.” Thomas v. Tice, 948 F.3d 133, 137 (3d Cir. 2020).
Defendants filed the instant motions in limine on June 22, 2026. (Docs.
147, 149). Defendants’ first motion seeks to preclude Martinez from
introducing causation evidence during trial. (Docs. 147-48). Defendants’
second motion seeks to preclude testimony and evidence related to claims
that have been dismissed from the case. (Docs. 149-50). Martinez has not
responded to either motion, and the motions are accordingly ripe for the
court’s consideration.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion in limine seeks a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of
evidence in order to narrow the evidentiary issues during trial and prevent
the jury from seeing improper evidence. Onderko v. LM Gen. Ins. Co., 567
F. Supp. 3d 495, 499 (M.D. Pa. 2021). Evidence is generally admissible if it
is relevant, meaning “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of
consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Evidence may
be precluded from trial 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. Evid. 403. “Excluding evidence as
being more prejudicial than probative at the pretrial stage is an extreme
measure that is rarely necessary, because no harm is done by admitting it at
that stage.” In re Paoli R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829, 859 (3d Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants’ first motion in limine seeks to preclude from trial any
testimony that diagnosed injuries or physical or mental conditions were
caused by defendants’ actions. (Doc. 148 at 4). Defendants argue that expert
testimony would be necessary to establish such a causal connection, and
note that plaintiff has not produced an expert report or otherwise indicated
an intention to produce expert testimony during the trial. (Id.)
The court will grant this motion in part and deny it in part. A lay witness
may only offer opinion testimony if it is “(a) rationally based on the witness’s
perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding 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.
Opinion testimony based on the witness’s scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge may only be given if the witness has been qualified
as an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Here, Martinez cannot testify that any formal medical diagnoses were
caused by defendants’ actions, because such testimony would require
expert testimony. To the extent, however, that Martinez testifies about his
injuries in a manner that is rationally based on his own perception of his
physical condition at the relevant time, such testimony is admissible.2 See,
e.g., In re Bayside Prison Litig., 341 F. App’x 790, 793 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding
that prisoner plaintiff could testify to his own perception of injuries he suffered
as a result of alleged assault); Hall v. Berdanier, No. 1:09-CV-1016, 2013
WL 818603, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2013) (same). The court will accordingly
grant this motion in part and deny it in part.
Defendants’ second motion seeks to preclude from trial any evidence
or testimony related to dismissed claims. The court will defer ruling on this
motion until trial. The court simply cannot determine whether admission of
evidence related to dismissed claims is proper until one of the parties has
attempted to introduce the evidence and the court can address any questions
of foundation, relevance, and potential prejudice on a developed trial record.
See Paoli, 916 F.2d at 859 (“[P]retrial Rule 403 exclusions should rarely be
granted. . . . [A] court cannot fairly ascertain the potential relevance of
evidence for Rule 403 purposes until it has a full record relevant to the
putatively objectionable evidence.” (internal emphasis omitted)).
2 Defendants acknowledge that this form of lay opinion testimony
would be admissible. (Doc. 148 at 4 (“[I]t is not disputed that Plaintiff may
testify to the conditions of his body as he perceived them. . .”).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ first motion in limine is granted
in part and denied in part, and defendants’ second motion in limine is denied
without prejudice. An appropriate order follows.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
Malachy E. Mannion
United States District Judge
Dated: July 6, 2026
20-1759-02