Cargile v. Meeks et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WINCHESTER DIVISION
SHANE CARGILE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:24-cv-18-MJD
)
ISAAC MEEKS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Shane Cargile (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the Coffee County Jail, filed this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on February 20, 2024, against Defendants Coffee
County, Tennessee (the “County”), and Isaac Meeks (“Officer Meeks”), a corrections officer at
the Coffee County Jail. Plaintiff alleges Officer Meeks used excessive force against him during an
incident on February 19, 2023, when Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee, which violated Plaintiff’s
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On November 5, 2025,
Plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of the County [Doc. 38], leaving Officer Meeks as the only
remaining defendant in this case.
The Court conducted a pretrial conference on November 18, 2025 (“November Pretrial
Conference”). During the November Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff moved to continue the trial date
due to scheduling conflicts in his other cases. On November 21, the Court entered an order [Doc.
50 (“November 21 Order”)], granting the motion to continue and resetting the trial for January 20,
2026. In the November 21 Order, the Court further held that the trial would be bifurcated, with
Phase One addressing (1) Officer Meeks’ liability and the amount of any compensatory damages
(or nominal damages), and (2) whether Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages; and
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Phase Two addressing, if necessary, the amount of punitive damages. Thereafter, the parties jointly
submitted proposed jury instructions and a verdict form for Phase Two [Doc. 52; Doc. 53]. Plaintiff
filed his objections to Officer Meeks’ deposition designations, and Officer Meeks filed a response
[Doc. 51; Doc. 56], to which Plaintiff did not reply. The parties also jointly submitted a
Supplemental Proposed Final Pretrial Order [Doc. 54], which identifies the exhibits the parties
intend to offer at trial that remain in dispute:
 Exhibit 2, February 19, 2023 Incident Report
 Exhibit 3, February 10, 2023 Disciplinary Hearing Decision
 Exhibit 4, February 19, 2023 Rule Violation Notice
 Exhibit 5, February 19, 2023 Disciplinary Hearing Appeal Decision
 Exhibit 11, February 19, 2023 OPA Report
 Exhibit 12, December 9, 2022 Incident Report (Case No. 2644)
 Exhibit 13, December 16, 2022 Disciplinary Recording 1
 Exhibit 14, December 16, 2022 Disciplinary Recording 2
 Exhibit 15, CCSD’s1 Disciplinary Hearing Decision (Case No. 2644)
 Exhibit 16, CCSD’s Inmate Rule Violation
 Exhibit 17, CCSD’s Disciplinary Hearing Appeal Decision (Case No. 2644)
 Exhibit 18, Plaintiff’s CCSD’s Disciplinary Appeal Form, Dated December 16, 2022
 Exhibit 24, October 9, 2013 Entry of Judgment for Theft over $1,000 (redacted)
 Exhibit 27, August 15, 2011 Conviction for Assault
 Exhibit 28, June 22, 2011 Conviction for Burglary of a Motor Vehicle (redacted)
1 Coffee County Sheriff’s Department
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
 Exhibit 29, June 22, 2011 conviction for theft over $1,000 (redacted)
[Doc. 54 at Page ID # 444–453].
During the November Pretrial Conference and a telephonic status conference held January
13, 2026 (“January 13 Status Conference”), the parties and the Court discussed how the disputed
exhibits could be divided into three categories: (1) Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 11, which all pertain to
the February 19, 2023, incident that forms the basis of Plaintiff’s claims in this case (“Incident-
Related Exhibits”); (2) Exhibits 12 through 18, which all pertain to incidents at the Coffee County
Jail involving Plaintiff that took place prior to February 19, 2023, and which are unrelated to the
subject incident (“Unrelated Incident Exhibits”); and (3) Exhibits 24, 25, 27, 28, and 29, all of
which are proof of Plaintiff’s prior convictions (“Conviction Exhibits”).2 The parties’
Supplemental Proposed Final Pretrial Order sets forth Plaintiff’s objections to these exhibits and
Officer Meeks’ responses. The Court addresses the parties’ arguments regarding the exhibits
below, followed by the parties’ dispute over the deposition designations.
1. 	Incident-Related Exhibits
The first category of exhibits are the Incident-Related Exhibits (Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and
11). Plaintiff objects to each of these exhibits on hearsay grounds pursuant to Rule 802, and to
Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 11 also on speculation and relevance grounds under Rules 402, 403, and 602.
In response to Plaintiff’s hearsay objections, Officer Meeks contends that each of the
Incident-Related Exhibits qualifies as an exception to hearsay under Rule 803(6), Records of
2 The Supplemental Proposed Final Pretrial Order [Doc. 54] also lists Exhibit 25 as disputed.
Exhibit 25 is labeled as “June 18, 2025 Conviction for Theft of Property of $2,500-$10,000.”
During the November Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff represented he would not object to Exhibit 25,
and he confirmed that he was withdrawing his objection to Exhibit 25 during the January 13 Status
Conference. Accordingly, the Court will terminate as moot Plaintiff’s objection to Exhibit 25.
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Regularly Conducted Activity,3 and as an exception under Rule 803(8), Public Records.4 Officer
Meeks asserts that he will be calling a records custodian to testify and lay a proper foundation
showing these exhibits qualify under these hearsay exceptions. The Court cannot determine on the
current record whether the Incident-Related Exhibits qualify under Rule 803(6) or 803(8).
3 To qualify as a record of regularly conducted activity under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6),
each exhibit must constitute a “record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis,” and meet
the following criteria:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by—or from information transmitted by—
someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business,
organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified
witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a
statute permitting certification; and
(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or
circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
4 To qualify as a public record under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8), each exhibit must constitute
a “record or statement of a public office,” and:
(A) it [must] set[] out:
(i) 	the office’s activities;
(ii) 	a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a
criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or
(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings
from a legally authorized investigation; and
(B) the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances
indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Accordingly, the Court RESERVES RULING on the Rule 803(6) and 803(8) hearsay issues as
to the Incident-Related Exhibits.
In addition, Exhibit 2 (the February 19, 2023, Incident Report), and possibly other Incident-
Related Exhibits, contains what appears to the Court to be hearsay within hearsay. During the
January 13 Status Conference, Officer Meeks explained that Christian Reese, one of the declarants
in Exhibit 2, will be testifying at trial, but otherwise the parties did not address any hearsay within
hearsay issues during the January 13 Status Conference, in their Supplemental Proposed Final
Pretrial Order [Doc. 54], or otherwise. The Court cannot determine on the current record whether
any hearsay within hearsay in Exhibit 2, or in any other Incident-Related Exhibits, meets any
hearsay exception in Rule 803. Accordingly, the Court RESERVES RULING on any hearsay
within hearsay issues pertaining to the Incident-Related Exhibits.
Plaintiff also argues Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 11 should be excluded pursuant to Federal Rules
of Evidence 402, 403, and 602. Officer Meeks contends that these Incident-Related Exhibits are
relevant because they relate directly to the “events and conduct in dispute” (Exhibit 3), contain a
“direct description of the disputed event” (Exhibit 4), reflect an “assessment of Plaintiff’s conduct
during the incident” (Exhibit 5), and contain a “factual account and findings regarding Plaintiff’s
and [Officer Meeks’] conduct.” [Doc. 54 at Page ID # 446–47]. During the January 13 Status
Conference, Officer Meeks reiterated these arguments and further clarified that he intends to call
experts who will testify regarding some of the Incident-Related Exhibits, and that some of the
other Incident-Related Reports contain Plaintiff’s statements made during investigative interviews.
“Evidence is relevant if: (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. “Relevant evidence is admissible” unless otherwise provided by the
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Constitution, federal statute, or the Federal Rules of Evidence, and “[i]rrelevant evidence is not
admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. Relevant evidence may be excluded by the court “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. The Court is unable to determine, on the current record,
whether Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 11 should be excluded as irrelevant or for one of the reasons listed in
Rule 403. Likewise, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a lack of personal knowledge as to these
exhibits on the current record; rather, Officer Meeks may elicit testimony at trial to demonstrate
the witness’s personal knowledge as to any of the Incident-Related Exhibits.
Courts should exclude evidence pretrial “only when [the] evidence is clearly inadmissible
on all potential grounds.” United States v. Phillips, 146 F. Supp. 3d 837, 841 (E.D. Mich. 2015)
(citation omitted). “In cases where that high standard is not met, ‘evidentiary rulings should be
deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice may be
resolved in proper context.’” Id. (quoting Ind. Ins. Co. v. GE, 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio
2004)). Accordingly, the Court RESERVES RULING on Plaintiff’s Rule 402, 403, and 602
objections to the Incident-Related Exhibits.
2. 	Unrelated Incident Exhibits
Plaintiff objects to each of the Unrelated Incident Exhibits (Exhibits 12–18) based on
Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, 404, and 802. Regarding Plaintiff’s Rule 404 objection,
Officer Meeks responds that these exhibits will be offered “not for propensity, but for intent, plan,
and absence of mistake regarding Plaintiff’s alleged fabrication of events in correctional
encounters.” [Doc. 54 at Page ID # 447–51]. More specifically, Officer Meeks contends that these
exhibits document “prior, similar incident[s],” some of which were “cell-entry events,” where
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Plaintiff engaged in “misrepresentation” and/or “falsification.” As a result, Officer Meeks
contends these exhibits fit various Rule 404(b) purposes: Exhibit 12 is “probative of a pattern of
falsifying circumstances, which bears directly on intent and absence of mistake in his present
allegation that the officer bit him” [Doc. 54 at Page ID # 447–48]; Exhibits 13 and 14 are “relevant
to whether his current claim (alleged bite) reflects a deliberate pattern rather than an accidental or
mistaken perception” [id. at Page ID # 448], and Exhibits 15, 16, 17, and 18 are “probative of
whether his current ‘bite’ allegations is intentional fabrication rather than mistake or
misunderstanding.” [id. at Page ID # 449].
These are not proper purposes under Rule 404(b). See United States v. Robinson, 272 F.
App’x 421, 420 (6th Cir. 2007) (rejecting argument that “proffered evidence was admissible
under Rule 404(b) because it tended to show that Officer Blanding may have fired at defendant
even though he did not see defendant with a gun, and that he lied about seeing defendant pull a
weapon in order to shield himself from liability,” finding that a “person’s propensity to act in a
certain way” is not a proper Rule 404(b) purpose and that “Rule 404(b) does not pertain to
evidence on the issue of credibility”) (citations omitted).
Officer Meeks has not argued these exhibits are relevant for any other purpose, and the
Court struggles to see how evidence of these unrelated, prior incidents have any tendency to make
any facts of consequence “more or less probable” than such facts would be without the exhibits.
Fed. R. Evid. 401. Even if these exhibits were somehow relevant to the subject incident, the
probative value of these exhibits is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to
Plaintiff, essentially for the reasons Officer Meeks articulated. Moreover, Officer Meeks has not
argued that he personally was aware of these prior incidents, such that they affected his state of
mind when encountering Plaintiff during the subject incident. See Hanson v. Madison Cnty. Det.
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Ctr., 736 F. App’x 521, 528 (6th Cir. 2018) (Whether force used was excessive must be determined
“from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the
time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” (citation omitted)).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the Unrelated Incident Exhibits (Exhibits 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, and 18) on Rule 402, 403, and 404 grounds are SUSTAINED. As such, it is unnecessary
for the Court to address Plaintiff’s Rule 802 hearsay objections to these exhibits, and the Court
declines to do so.
3. 	Conviction Exhibits
The third group is the Conviction Exhibits (Exhibits 24, 27, 28, and 29). Plaintiff objects
to admission of the Conviction Exhibits under Rule 609 and Rule 404. Officer Meeks indicates he
is not seeking to offer the Conviction Exhibits for any purpose under Rule 404. Plaintiff’s Rule
404 objections to the Conviction Exhibits are therefore OVERRULED. Rule 609 provides:
(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character for
truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:
(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death
or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:
(A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a
criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; . . .
. . . .
(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be
admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of
the crime required proving—or the witness’s admitting—a dishonest act or
false statement.
(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if
more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or release from
confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only
if:
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances,
substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and
(2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the
intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.
Fed. R. Evid. 609.
Exhibit 27 shows an August 2011 misdemeanor conviction for assault, for which Plaintiff
was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, with his sentence suspended for all but 60 days. As
assault is not a crime of dishonesty, the conviction/sentence are more than ten years old, and the
conviction does not appear to be otherwise relevant, Plaintiff’s objection to Exhibit 27 is
SUSTAINED.
The parties do not appear to dispute that the remaining convictions are all felonies and that
they involved a dishonest act. Exhibit 24 shows a conviction for theft over $1,000, entered October
9, 2013, for which Plaintiff was sentenced to two years of incarceration; Exhibit 28 shows a
conviction for burglary of a motor vehicle, entered June 22, 2011, for which Plaintiff was
sentenced to 1 year of incarceration followed by six months of probation; and Exhibit 29 shows a
conviction for theft over $1,000, entered June 22, 2011, for which Plaintiff was sentenced to 182
days of incarceration followed by three years and six months of probation (collectively, the
“Felony Convictions”).
During the January 13 Status Conference, the Court asked the parties their positions
regarding when the ten-year clock began to run on the Felony Convictions, and neither side offered
any substantive argument whatsoever. When questioned, Plaintiff was unable to answer whether
the Felony Convictions were more than ten years old as that time period is calculated under Rule
609.
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
Nevertheless, it appears from the face of the exhibits that the Felony Convictions are more
than ten years old for Rule 609 purposes. Accordingly, evidence of these convictions is admissible
only if there are “specific facts and circumstances” demonstrating that the probative value of these
convictions “substantially outweighs” their prejudicial effect. Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). “Rule 609(b)
creates, in effect, a rebuttable presumption that convictions over ten years old are more prejudicial
than helpful and should be excluded.” United States v. Rodriguez, 409 F. App’x 866, 869-70 (6th
Cir. 2011) (citation omitted) (affirming exclusion of 14-year-old conviction for theft).
In United States v. Sims, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explained
that “[w]hen stale convictions are offered for the purpose of impeaching a witness, they often shed
little light on the present tendency of the witness toward truthfulness and veracity.” 588 F.2d 1145,
1148 (6th Cir.1978). The court concluded that evidence of convictions more than ten years old will
“very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances” be admitted. Id. Rule 609(b) requires the Court
to make an “on-the-record finding based on specific facts and circumstances that the probative
value of the evidence substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.”5 Sims, 588 F.2d at
1149 (citation omitted). The court identified the following factors “which the judge should take
into account”:
(1) The impeachment value of the prior crime.
(2) The point in time of the conviction and the witness’ subsequent history.
(3) The similarity between the past crime and the charged crime.
(4) The importance of the defendant’s testimony.
5 In Sims, the Sixth Circuit urged “trial judges to make such determinations after a hearing on the
record.” 588 F.2d at 1149. The parties have not requested oral argument specifically regarding the
Conviction Exhibits, however, and the Court finds additional opportunity to argue the admissibility
of these exhibits is not necessary.
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
(5) The centrality of the credibility issue.
Id. (citation omitted); see also Lovett v. Cole, No. 1:11-cv-277, 2014 WL 5802666, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio Nov. 7, 2014) (applying factors in civil case; excluding evidence of “nearly twenty-year-old
criminal convictions”).
Although the subject incident does not involve allegations of theft or burglary against
Plaintiff, all the other factors militate in favor of admission. The Felony Convictions certainly have
some impeachment value, as Plaintiff’s testimony is likely to be critical in this case. Although
there is a video of the subject incident, neither side has argued it is crystal clear, and neither side
filed a dispositive motion in this case. The jury will therefore likely be required to consider the
video alongside other proof in this case, including Plaintiff’s testimony and credibility. Plaintiff
has not argued otherwise, nor has he argued the Felony Convictions do not bear on his credibility.
Finally, the Court finds it significant that Plaintiff sustained another serious theft-related
conviction, as reflected in Exhibit 25, barely ten years after completing his incarceration/probation
for the Felony Convictions.6
On balance, the Court finds Officer Meeks has overcome the rebuttable presumption
against admitting the Felony Convictions from 2011 and 2013. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections
to Exhibits 24, 28, and 29 are OVERRULED.
4. 	Deposition Designations
Finally, in the November 21 Order, the Court ordered the parties to address Officer Meeks’
deposition designations, all of which concern Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Plaintiff timely filed
6 Exhibit 25 is Plaintiff’s June 18, 2025, Conviction for Theft of Property of $2,500–$10,000. It
lists an offense date of August 4, 2021, and it indicates Plaintiff received pretrial jail credit for the
time period beginning August 7, 2021, and ending on the date judgment was entered, June 18,
2025. As mentioned above, Plaintiff has withdrawn his objection to the admissibility of Exhibit
25.
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
his objection [Doc. 51], and Officer Meeks timely filed his response [Doc. 56]. Plaintiff was not
required to file a reply, and he did not do so.
Plaintiff indicates that he “generally does not object to the deposition excerpts, except that
he submits that a couple places should include some additional lines for context.” [Doc. 51 at Page
ID # 433]. Officer Meeks does not object to the inclusion of page 51, line 13 through page 52, line
1, and he does not object to the inclusion of page 29, line 1 through line 2. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
objections (or perhaps more accurately, counter-designations) are SUSTAINED. Officer Meeks
SHALL include the aforementioned additional lines when offering Plaintiff’s deposition
testimony at trial.
The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection to the extent he requests inclusion of page
29, lines 3 through 8, beginning with “And with Meeks, he’s always trying to cause trouble.”
Plaintiff’s only argument is that these additional lines would be helpful for “context.” The Court
respectfully disagrees. The Court agrees with Officer Meeks that lines 3 through 8 are
nonresponsive to the question, appear to reflect hearsay or improper opinion testimony, and in
general do not meet applicable standards for admissibility.
5. 	Conclusion
As set forth above, the Court hereby OVERRULES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s objection to
Exhibit 25.
The Court RESERVES RULING on Plaintiff’s objections to the Incident-Related
Exhibits (Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 11). Plaintiff may renew his objections to these exhibits at trial.
The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s objections to the Unrelated Incident Exhibits (Exhibits
12 through 18). If Officer Meeks has a good-faith basis for seeking to enter these exhibits at trial
for some other reason that those addressed herein, he SHALL bring it to the attention of the Court
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
outside the presence of the jury before displaying the Unrelated Incident Exhibits to the jury or
attempting to elicit testimony regarding the content of the Unrelated Incident Exhibits.
The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection to Exhibits 24, 28, and 29 and SUSTAINS
Plaintiff’s objection to Exhibit 27.
The Court SUSTAINS IN PART AND OVERRULES IN PART Plaintiff’s objection to
Officer Meeks’ deposition designations, as set forth above.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s/
MIKE DUMITRU
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-00018-MJD Document 63 Filed 01/14/26 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>