Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perkins v. Wilson

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division

November 7, 2014

TRACY PERKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN WILSON, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

E. RICHARD WEBBER, Senior District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Tracy Perkins's Motion in Limine [ECF No. 93], Defendant John Wilson, Sr.'s Motion in Limine [ECF No. 138], and Defendant John Wilson, Sr.'s Objections to Plaintiff's Designations [ECF No. 137].

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2006, Plaintiff Tracy Perkins was an inmate in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) at the Women's Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center (WERDCC) in Vandalia, Missouri. During this time, Plaintiff accepted a position working in the laundry facility. Defendant John Wilson, Sr. was a DOC employee and the manager of the laundry facility. Plaintiff has testified, during this time, Defendant Wilson conversed with her, and eventually began touching and kissing her.[1]

Plaintiff alleges, in October 2006, Defendant Wilson entered the laundry bathroom while Plaintiff was present and locked the door behind her. Plaintiff contends Defendant Wilson proceeded to have nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her. She further alleges, shortly afterward, she went to Defendant Wilson's office with him. While there, another prison official, Michelle Shoemeyer, walked into the office and became suspicious, prompting an investigation and Plaintiff's ensuing removal to administrative segregation. In the Circuit Court of Audrain County, Missouri, a jury subsequently found Defendant Wilson guilty of the class D felony of sexual contact with a prisoner or offender, in violation of Missouri Revised Statute § 566.145. After his conviction, the DOC terminated Defendant Wilson's employment.

In 2011, Plaintiff brought suit against the following individuals: Defendant Wilson; Larry Crawford, the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) at the time of the underlying events; George Lombardi, the current DOC Director; and Patricia Cornell, the warden of WERDCC from 1999 to 2004. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Wilson violated her Eighth Amendment right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff also asserts against Defendant Wilson a Missouri state law claim of outrageous conduct. Furthermore, Plaintiff's Complaint also asserted § 1983 claims against Defendants Crawford, Lombardi, and Cornell, claiming they failed to adequately train WERDCC employees, failed to protect her, and failed to use adequate procedures.

On April 18, 2104, Defendant Wilson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 72]. On week later, Defendant Wilson filed his Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Report of Marilyn Hutchinson [ECF No. 74]. On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant John Wilson, Sr. [ECF No. 84], and also filed her pending Motion in Limine soon afterward, on May 22 [ECF No. 93]. On May 27, Defendants Cornell, Crawford, and Lombardi filed their Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 94]. In July 2014, the Court denied Defendant Wilson's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 109] and granted in part Defendant Wilson's Motion to Exclude [ECF No. 110]. On August 6, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 116] and granted the summary judgment Motion of Defendants Cornell, Crawford, and Lombardi [ECF No. 117]. Thus, Plaintiff's only remaining claims are the Eighth Amendment and outrageous conduct claims against Defendant Wilson (hereafter "Defendant").

On November 3, 2014, Defendant filed his Objections to Plaintiff's Designations [ECF No. 137] and his Motion in Limine [ECF No. 138].

On November 6, 2014, the Court conducted a pretrial conference to hear argument of the parties' pretrial motions [ECF No. 140]. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the Court took the motions under submission. After review of the parties' motions and memoranda and consideration of the parties' arguments, the Court rules as follows.

II. RULINGS

A. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine [ECF No. 93]

In this Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court for evidentiary rulings on five matters.

1. Conversations with Attorneys Concerning Matters Related to this Lawsuit

Defendant does not oppose this portion of Plaintiff's Motion, and the parties ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.