Ejonga v. Watanabe, 2:21-cv-01004

Background

This is a federal civil rights case brought by Jojo Deogracias Ejonga against corrections officer Alex Watanabe in the Western District of Washington.
The core allegation is a First Amendment violation: Ejonga claims Watanabe retaliated against him for grievances and complaints about prison conditions, particularly related to COVID-19.
The parties filed opposing motions in limine regarding admissibility of certain evidence, damages, and permissible arguments at trial.
The motions in limine deal with issues such as references to indemnification, prior convictions, mental/emotional damages, and punitive damages under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA").
The relevant procedural stage is pretrial—this order memorializes the court’s oral rulings just prior to trial.
The legal debate is heavily focused on whether particular provisions of the PLRA bar certain damages (compensatory, mental/emotional, punitive) in a First Amendment prisoner lawsuit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Indemnification references	Should be excluded as irrelevant; agrees defendant may not plead inability to pay punitive damages	Agrees; wants to bar reference to state covering damages	Excluded
"Felon" label/criminal conviction evidence	Labels like "convicted person" or "incarcerated person" are sufficient context	Wants to use "felon," objects to excluding the conviction status	Excluded; neutral language required
Evidence about prior lawsuits/other claims	Should be irrelevant and prejudicial unless plaintiff opens the door	Wants to use dismissed COVID-19 claim evidence as impeachment if opened	Excluded, unless plaintiff testifies in a way that opens the door
Prior misconduct by Ejonga during incarceration	Exclude, except necessary background about grievance limits relevant to retaliation context	Wants to introduce evidence about grievances and prior conduct	Excluded except for necessary info about grievance limits
Use of per diem/formula for pain & suffering damages	Bar formulaic arguments but permit mention of duration	Bar use of formulas for damages	Any formula barred; duration reference allowed
Mental/emotional damages under PLRA	Argues PLRA §1997e(e) does not bar such damages for First Amendment claims; pro se complaint construction	Argues mental/emotional damages barred unless physical injury shown under PLRA	Permitted; PLRA §1997e(e) does not bar such damages for First Amendment claims
Punitive damages under PLRA	Argues punitive damages available and not foreclosed by statute; cited case law supports claim	Argues PLRA §3626(a) bars punitive damages as “prospective relief”	Permitted, subject to later review if awarded by jury

Key Cases Cited

Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1998) (PLRA §1997e(e) does not bar damages for First Amendment violations)
Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002) (Punitive damages not barred by PLRA §1997e(e); de minimis injury requirement)
Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1986) (Limits on jury instructions for abstract value of constitutional rights)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (Due process limits on punitive damages awards)
BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (Due process and punitive damages)
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1981) (Punitive damages exceed compensation; context of municipal liability)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (Broadly construing “prison conditions” under the PLRA)