HUNTER v. BEASLEY

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
JORDAN HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden JACOB BEASLEY
,
Defendant.
_________________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:22-cv-144–WLS-ALS
ORDER
On December 29, 2025, Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 51) (“Motion”) was
filed. On December 30, 2025, the Court held a Pretrial Conference in this case, at which the
Motion was discussed. Plaintiff had not filed a response to the Motion prior to the Pretrial
Conference. During the Pretrial Conference, the Court heard arguments and discussion on
the Motion, at which time Plaintiff’s counsel advised that he did not expect to oppose most
of Defendant’s requests. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion. The Court
considers briefing completed, and the Motion ripe for decision.
I. 	BACKGROUND F ACTS
Plaintiff Jordan Hunter is an inmate in the Georgia Department of Corrections who
transferred to Valdosta State Prison (“VSP”) on August 13, 2022. Warden Jacob Beasley was
the Warden of VSP until his reassignment to Warden of Smith State Prison on March 1, 2023.
Plaintiff alleges that he was assigned to administrative segregation at VSP without a
hearing for events that took place at his previous facility, Dodge State Prison. Plaintiff claims
that Warden Beasley violated his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights by
placing him in administrative segregation without a hearing or required 90-day review hearings,
and also his Eighth Amendment right as a prisoner to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment based on the conditions of administrative segregation at VSP.
Plaintiff alleges the conditions in administrative segregation at VSP posed a substantial
risk of serious harm to Plaintiff, and there is no evidence of any injury that Plaintiff suffered
Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 6	Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 6

2
as a result of being assigned to administrative segregation at VSP. Plaintiff alleges these
conditions violated Plaintiff’s rights.
Warden Beasley denies he violated Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights or right to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. 	Motions
in Limine are Disfavored and Preliminary
As an initial matter, the real purpose of a motion in limine is to avoid the introduction
of evidence at trial that is “clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds” and could irretrievably
impact the fairness of the trial. Royal Marco Point 1 Condo. Ass’n v. QBE Ins. Corp., No.
2:07-cv-16-FtM-99SPC, 2011 WL 470561, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2011) (citing Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984)). Indeed, because the context at trial often determines the
admissibility of evidence, “[i]n limine rulings to admit or exclude evidence are always
preliminary and conditioned on what the evidence shows at trial.” Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises,
Inc., 682 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir. 2012) (Tjoflat, J., dissenting from denial of reh’g en banc
(citing Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000) (“[I]n limine rulings are not binding
on the trial judge, and the judge may always change his mind during the course of a trial.”))).
And relevance is intentionally a broad concept— “[e]vidence is relevant if it has any tendency
to make a [consequential] fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Fed. R. Evid. 401. This means that various types of evidence could potentially be relevant at
trial notwithstanding a movant’s in limine position. Furthermore, a trial court can promptly
instruct a jury to disregard improper testimony or inadmissible evidence, and “‘[i]n many such
cases the jury can and will follow the trial judge’s instructions to disregard such information.’”
United States v. Astling, 733 F.2d 1446, 1455 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Bruton v. United States, 391
U.S. 123, 135 (1968)); United States v. Fuentes, 521 F. App’x 911, 911 (11th Cir. 2013) (per
curiam).
As such, the Court disfavors motions in limine and retains the discretion to change any
rulings on evidence made herein based on a party’s objection, evidence, or argument at trial.
However, no counsel, party, or witness may reference excluded evidence before counsel first
notices the Court and opposing counsel outside of the presence of the jury and obtains the
Court’s ultimate ruling regarding the same. Counsel shall also accordingly instruct their
Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 6	Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 6

3
witnesses. Counsel shall make proper and timely objection at trial as to any evidence or
argument they consider inadmissible or improper.
Motions in limine exist to help narrow and define the questions that will be
presented at trial and to assist the trial court and counsel in preparation for and
execution of the trial.
Further, motions in limine can be useful in avoiding even the passing
mention in front of the jury of improper or inadmissible matters that are
particularly prejudicial. A motion in limine that essentially asks the trial court to follow
the law does not accomplish any of those ends.
Williams v. Harvey, 858 S.E.2d 479, 492 (Ga. 2021) (Bethel, J. concurring) (emphasis added).
Counsel shall make proper and contemporaneous objection at trial as to any evidence
or argument they consider inadmissible. See Cephus v. CSX Transp., Inc., 771 F. App’x 883, 894-
95 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (finding that a party should promptly object to suspected
violations of a motion in limine order unless objection would clearly be futile).
With this background, the Court turns to the pending Motion in Limine.
III. 	MOTION
Defendant’s Motion lists five subjects on which Defendant requests Plaintiff be
precluded from offering evidence during the trial of this matter.
A. 	Evidence Regarding Other Claims and Other Parties
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s initial complaint (Doc. 1) contained several claims
against the “defendants,” and that arguments, testimony or other evidence regarding other
claims are irrelevant to the two remaining claims; i.e., Plaintiff’s claim that he was placed in
administrative segregation on August 13, 2022, without due process and his claim related to
the conditions of confinement. (Doc. 51-1 at 1). Defendant was and is the only named
Defendant in this case, and except for the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction, Plaintiff was permitted to go forward with the only two claims raised in his
Complaint. (See Order & Recommendation (Doc. 5) and Order adopting that recommendation
(Doc. 9)). Defendant does not state with specificity the substance of the argument, testimony,
and evidence he seeks to exclude but cites generally to the complaint (Doc. 1).
Based on the foregoing and upon full review and consideration of the Record, the
Motion, and considering the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion
Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 6	Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 6

4
to preclude evidence regarding other claims and other parties where none are specifically
identified by Defendant, is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The burden remains on
Defendant to make timely objection to any such matter actually raised at trial.
B. 	“Other Act” Evidence
Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from attempt to present evidence or elicit
testimony accusing Defendant of other bad acts in an effort to show a propensity to fail to
protect Plaintiff. Defendant contends such evidence is irrelevant and that it should be excluded
as improper character evidence. Defendant concedes, however, that such evidence may “be
admissible for other purposes, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” (Doc. 51-1 at 2).
Based on the foregoing and upon full review and consideration of the Record, the
Motion, and considering the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion
to preclude evidence relating to any of Defendant’s “other acts” is DENIED IN PART and
GRANTED IN PART, such that prior to introducing evidence relating to Defendant’s
“other acts,” Plaintiff shall lay a proper foundation that such evidence is relevant. Such
foundation shall be presented on proper notice to opposing counsel and the Court, and
outside of the hearing of the jury. Counsel shall make no reference to any such evidence in the
presence of the jury pending proper notice and ruling by the Court. Counsel shall likewise so
instruct witnesses.
C. 	Evidence regarding Policies of State of Georgia and/or Georgia
Department of Corrections
Neither the State of Georgia nor the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDOC”)
is a named party to this lawsuit. Defendant seeks to exclude, as improper, any evidence of
unrelated actions or allegations against, or issues within, the State of Georgia or GDOC.
Defendant contends such evidence could improperly influence the jury by suggesting
Defendant’s 	liability 	by 	association. 	Defendant 	contends 	such 	evidence 	is 	irrelevant,
prejudicial, and misleading.
In addition, Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence that
Defendant or other officers violated GDOC’s policies and/or procedures. Defendant
contends that violation of such policies and procedures does not amount to a constitutional
Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 6	Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 6

5
violation, and thus such testimony is irrelevant, inadmissible, and unfairly prejudicial.
Defendant has not identified any specific evidence expected to be presented by Plaintiff, the
mention of which is prejudicial to the Defendants, that cannot be adequately addressed by
objection and/or curative instructions. Further, although a policy or practice may not be
conclusive proof of a constitutional violation, they may yet, upon proper proof, be relevant.
Based on the foregoing and upon full review and consideration of the Record, the
Motion, and considering the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion
to preclude evidence relating to the policies of the State of Georgia or GDOC, or evidence
that Defendant violated such policies, is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART,
such that prior to introducing such evidence, Plaintiff shall lay a proper foundation that such
evidence is relevant. Such foundation shall be presented on proper notice to opposing counsel
and the Court, and outside of the hearing of the jury. Counsel shall make no reference to any
such evidence in the presence of the jury pending proper notice and ruling by the Court.
Counsel shall likewise so instruct witnesses.
D. 	Hearsay
Defendant next argues that testimony must be based on personal knowledge of the
witness, and requests that Plaintiff be precluded from offering hearsay evidence. A motion
that essentially asks the Court to require opposing party to comply with the Federal Rules of
Evidence, or that the Court follow the law, does not serve the purposes of a motion in limine.
Williams, 858 S.E.2d at 492 (Ga. 2021).
Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to preclude Plaintiff from presenting hearsay
evidence is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Defendant can and may raise such
objection, to the extent appropriate, as it relates to specific testimony offered by Plaintiff at
trial.
E. 	Insurance Coverage
Defendant next argues that evidence that Defendant is insured against liability is
irrelevant, prejudicial, and inadmissible as it relates to Defendant’s potential liability to
Plaintiff. Defendant requests that Plaintiff be precluded from mentioning insurance coverage,
including any reference to the Department of Administrative Services or other entity which
Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 6	Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Plaintiff perceives is or may be involved with liability insurance coverage or settlement of
claims in this action.
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not
admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise
wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such
as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or
control.
Fed. R. Evid. 411.
Again, a motion that essentially asks the Court to require opposing party to comply
with the Federal Rules of Evidence, or that the Court follow the law, does not serve the
purposes of a motion in limine. Williams, 858 S.E.2d at 492 (Ga. 2021).
Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to preclude Plaintiff from presenting evidence
that 	Defendant 	is 	insured 	against 	liability 	is 	DENIED 	IN 	PART, 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Defendant can and may raise such objection, to the extent appropriate, as it
relates to specific testimony offered by Plaintiff at trial. The Court notes, however, that the
evidence of insurance is generally inadmissible to prove liability and irrelevant. Therefore, the
burden is upon the proponent of such evidence to first show relevance and proper grounds
for admission upon notice to opposing counsel and the Court outside the presence of the jury.
Counsel shall make no reference to any such evidence in the presence of the jury pending
proper notice and ruling by the Court. Counsel shall likewise so instruct witnesses.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine
(Doc. 51) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART, as specifically set forth above.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of January 2026.
/s/W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 6	Case 7:22-cv-00144-WLS-ALS Document 57 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 6