This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was attacked by three fellow detainees. He brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that D and Gary Andrews, a lieutenant, violated his constitutional right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to protect him from the attack. The court granted D's motion in limine to exclude evidence that D resigned from the Center in lieu of accepting termination of his employment. D resigned after he was accused of passing a cigarette to an inmate in violation of institutional policy. On interlocutory appeal, it was concluded that Andrews was entitled to qualified immunity, but remanded for further proceedings on the claim against D. P's cellmate, Boyce, testified that he warned D that three inmates were planning to assault P. According to Boyce, D responded that he would inform his lieutenant. D denied that Boyce told him about the planned attack. The jury found in favor of D. P moved for a new trial based on the exclusion of resignation evidence. P argued that the reason for D’s termination showed 'dishonest character' and that the rules of evidence allowed its admission. The court ruled that the resignation was 'not indicative of D’s character for truthfulness' and that 'the underlying 'bad act' of passing cigarettes to an inmate is not the type of 'bad act' evidence which is admissible under the rules of evidence.' P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.