Rivera v. Daniel Bogden
2:17-cv-02776-JCM-NJK
D. Nev.Jun 30, 2023Background:
- Rivera was arrested on drug charges in Jan 2014; an arrest warrant issued Nov 2014 and he was arrested in Oct 2015 in the Eastern District of California and transferred to Nevada Southern Detention Center (NSDC).
- Upon Rivera’s arrival at NSDC, a U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) deputy received an email but failed to forward it to the court, and Rivera remained in CoreCivic’s physical custody for nearly a year without an initial appearance.
- Rivera finally had an initial appearance on Oct. 24, 2016 and was released on personal recognizance.
- Rivera sued the United States in 2019; in that related case Judge Boulware found USMS had a duty to ensure detainees were brought to the attention of court officials and that USMS protocols were not followed (causation remained disputed); the government case later settled.
- CoreCivic moved in limine in this action seeking judicial notice of the government-case findings and, alternatively, to estop Rivera from arguing CoreCivic’s responsibility; Rivera opposed.
- The district court granted CoreCivic’s motion in limine in part and denied it in part: it took limited judicial notice that USMS breached the duty to notify court officials, but declined broader pretrial findings that CoreCivic owed no duty or that Rivera was estopped from alleging CoreCivic’s liability.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should take judicial notice of government-case finding that USMS breached duty to notify court officials | Rivera maintains both USMS and CoreCivic breached duties; taking notice is acceptable but should not resolve CoreCivic liability | CoreCivic asked for judicial notice and a pretrial finding that USMS breached the duty | Court took judicial notice and found USMS breached that duty (limited scope) |
| Whether judicial notice of USMS breach forecloses any duty owed by CoreCivic | Rivera contends CoreCivic still owed independent duties and may be liable | CoreCivic argued the notice should preclude inconsistent claims that it was responsible | Court ruled the notice is limited to USMS; it did not find CoreCivic owed no duty |
| Whether Rivera is estopped or bound by judicial admissions from arguing CoreCivic’s liability because of the government case | Rivera consistently alleged both USMS and CoreCivic were negligent and may pursue both theories | CoreCivic argued Rivera’s separate government suit and dismissals should estop him from arguing CoreCivic’s responsibility here | Court rejected estoppel/judicial-admission argument and allowed Rivera to continue alleging both parties were negligent |
| Scope and finality of the in limine ruling | Rivera relied on limitation of any pretrial findings | CoreCivic sought broader pretrial determinations | Court emphasized in limine rulings are provisional, granted in part and denied in part, and declined broad pretrial findings beyond the limited judicial notice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.) (discussing motions in limine and evidentiary rulings)
- Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985 (9th Cir.) (use of in limine practice under district court authority)
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S.) (in limine rulings are provisional and may be revisited at trial)
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (U.S.) (in limine rulings are not binding and may change during trial)
- Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663 (7th Cir.) (district court discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.) (deference to district court Rule 403 balancing)
- United States v. Williams, 939 F.2d 721 (9th Cir.) (admission of evidence under Rule 609 discussed in limine context)
- Rivera v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 999 F.3d 647 (9th Cir.) (noting Rivera’s consistent allegations that both USMS and CoreCivic were negligent)