Opinion ID: 1198869
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Proceedings in the Original Action

Text: Sims initially filed a § 1983 complaint pro se in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in February 2000 ( Pro Se Complaint or original complaint), using the SDNY complaint form for pro se prisoners, against respondents and seven others (collectively defendants), requesting money damages, injunctive relief, and termination of the defendants' employment. With respect to Blot and Caraballo, the complaint described the December 20 incident as follows: I was told to stay facing the wall[,] hand back my shirt. This done I was told to hand back my shoes. This done I was told to remove my pants and hand them back. When I reached down to take my pants off, CO. M. Blot punched me in the back of my head and then grabbed me around my chest pinning my arms at my side and slammed me to the floor. At this time C.O.s Carabello [ sic ], White, and McDonough commensed [ sic ] to kick, stomp and punch me about my head, neck, shoulders and back. I yelled out for Sgt. Hasse to come and intervene to no avail. While I was struggling to cover up from being either kicked or punched in a vital area, my feet was grabbed and held by someone while CO. M. Blot placed his knee in my side and kept punching me in my head. CO. F. Carabello, [ sic ] shouted, You hit a f____ing officer, you piece of s____, we'll kill you. At this time, CO. F. Carabello, [ sic ] pulled his pocket knife and swung down in a stabbing motion. I twisted away as best I could but was cut by his knife anyway.... ( Pro Se Complaint Item IV.) In response to the SDNY complaint form's instruction to describe any injuries sustained, Sims stated, I received a laceration over eye that required five [5] steri-strips to close; I also had swelling to right shoulder, pain medication given. ( Id. Item V-A.) In August 2003, after the claims against all of the defendants other than Blot and Caraballo had been dismissed, either on summary judgment or by stipulation, Sims's complaint was dismissed on the ground that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In the meantime, there were discovery proceedings in 2000-2002 leading to the order at issue here. Defendants scheduled Sims's deposition for December 2000. Sims asked the district court either to relieve him of the obligation to give pretrial testimony in the form of a deposition or to appoint counsel to represent him. The court denied both requests in an order filed on November 28, 2000, and denied a renewed request for the appointment of counsel in an order filed on December 11, 2000. The court stated that Sims would be allowed to renew his request for assignment of counsel after submitting a copy of the transcript of his deposition.
Defendants proceeded to depose Sims. Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Nicola N. Grey, representing the defendants, questioned Sims, representing himself. Q. Can you please describe for me what happened to you on December 20th, 1999? A. Yes. I was coming back into the special housing unit at Sing Sing from the hospital, and Officers Blot, Carabello [ sic ], White, and McDonough were standing around the strip frisk area waiting for me to come in. When I got in I had a few words with Officer Blot which basically stem from prior confrontation I had with him a week earlier. While I was standing there waiting to get processed back in the guy from [the Inspector General's office] came in and I tried to stop him to speak to him, let him know that I had a feeling that this was about ready to get a little bit out of hand, and I wanted him to stick around. He said that he couldn't stop at that particular moment, but he would come see me a little later on. (Deposition of Nathaniel Sims, December 28, 2000 (Sims Dep.), at 15.) Sims stated that he began removing items of clothing as instructed by Blot, and while I was taking my pants off he hit me. Q. Then what happened after that? A. Rushed me, grabbed me, bear hug, threw me to the floor, and the rest of the officers commenced to helping [ sic ] him out here. In the process of that Q. What do you mean by helping him out? A. Helping him to physically assault me. In the process of that, Officer Carabello [ sic ] yelled out to me: You hit an officer! I'll kill your effen' behind. Okay. So while they was punching on me and everything I seen him swing down, I moved my head and he cut me [with a knife].... Eventually they put handcuffs and shackles on me and rushed me down to the ER. ( Id. at 16.) Sims testified that he was returned to the special housing unit (SHU) on the night of the incident; but on the next day, he was moved back to the hospital and placed in the psychiatric satellite unit (PSU). ( See id. at 18.) Sims stated that he was not on PSU status at that time but was kept in the PSU for several weeks thereafter for security reasons. ( Id. ) The AAG questioned Sims about his PSU status: Q. Okay. I want to direct you to your complaint. It states in your complaint that you were being returned from PSU, mental health unit, prior to the incident? A. Yes. Q. Did you have PSU status at that time? A. At that time I did, yes. Q. So on 12/20/99 prior to A. Prior to that. Q.prior to returning to the SHU you had A. I was admitted on the PSU. Q. How long were you in PSU? A. From the 13th, 12/13 tono, 12/13/99. Pardon me. Q. And why were you admitted to the PSU? A. They thought I was kind [of] bugging. What happened was I punched the plexiglas and broke it, and cut my hand. This is basically what started all this. Officer Blot and Officer Carabello [ sic ] had just beaten up on a crazy inmate and I spoke up. That's basically what happened. And because of that it escalated tofirst they was talking about coming to my cell, and I was like: All right! Fine! We can do that. And I had a pen, and I had a cup of liquid detergent and they was saying that I was threatening to throw it on them, this crazy nonsense. But that's what started all this. That's where the week earlier came from where we had the words. .... ... What they end up doing was moving me and putting me behind glass. And I felt that there was no need to be placed behind glass because I hadn't thrown anything, hadn't threatened to throw anything, so I broke the glass. .... Q. And after you broke the glass what happened? A. Well, because I end up cutting myself with the glass they felt that I was really, really out of it. They sent me upstairs to PSU to calm down, basically. And I ended up staying up there for about a week. I came back that Monday which was [December] 20th. I believe that was the Monday. Q. Okay. So, prior to getting escorted to SHU they took you off of PSU status. A. Right. (Sims Dep. 24-28.) One of those sued by Sims in his original complaint was Lorraine Del Santo, a psychiatric nurse. Asked why he had made her a defendant, Sims responded that although Del Santo was not present at the December 20 incident, she had been included because Sims had told her prior to the incident that he had been threatened by two of these officers on a regular basis. ( Id. at 30.) The AAG questioned Sims about that conversation: Q. How did you make your complaint to Del Santo, the nurse? A. She got to be the mental health therapist that made rounds at SHU. And being that I see inmates from MHU [Mental Health Unit], I see them on a regular basis from a lot of stress and things of that nature, I explained to her during her rounds and a few times when I've gone upstairs to PHU [ sic ] I explained to her I had to get away from down there because I stand by ready to lose it. They keep constantly threatening me, and I'm not going to sit back and let them do it to me first, so before it happens I think I haveneed a break. Put me up here from downstairs, let things calm down. On one occasion I told her that these guys was threatening me. Her response was: Well, you must have done something to them. Okay. Q. How many times did you complain to her? A. I complained to her more than five times. How many exactly, I can't recall. But I know it was definitely more than five times. (Sims Dep. 32-33.) Sims stated that he complained to Del Santo that the threatened assaults were stressing [him] out ( id. at 62), but that nothing was ever done about those complaints. The AAG asked: Q. Well, what did you expect Del Santo to do? A. Like I said, that's my therapist, and being that I constantly complain to her she could go to the Superintendent and explain to them: Listen, you know, the guy's one of our patients. You know, he's down there in your area. Do something about this before it gets out of hand. You know, she has my whole folder right there. She knows how I can get. Why allow it to escalate to that? Q. Did you ask her to talk to the superintendent? A. I asked her to speak to a few people. I said: Talk to whoever you've got to talk to to get them to stop bothering me, or get me out of here. .... Q. How could she get you out of there? A. Like I said, put meyou know, they doing the same thing here now, mental health may go to the deputy of security, or go to the Superintendent. Listen, it would be beneficial to get Sims out of here. He's wearing his welcome out, or something. Anything! She could sit there, you know, like for his state of mind it would be beneficial to get him out of here. Q. So she would have had to put you on PSU status? A. No, she wouldn't have to put me on PSU status, but being my therapist she could makebasically speak for me. (Sims Dep. 62-64.) As to the injuries claimed by Sims, the AAG questioned him as follows: Q. Did you receive any injuries? A. Yeah. Q. And what injuries did you receive? A. That laceration for one, swelling of my back, had to get five sutures tosteri-strips to close that up. ( Id. at 52.) After Sims described having the blood washed out of his eye, from the laceration above it, and stated that he had been given pain medication for his back, the AAG inquired as to any further injuries and received a negative response: Q. And besides these injuries did you receive any other injuries? A. No. ( Id. at 53.) After exploring Sims's filing of a grievance and an administrative complaint about the December 20 incident, the AAG returned to the subject of injury: Q. Besides the physical injuries did you suffer any mental injuries as a result of this incident? A. I wouldn't say I suffered mental injuries as a result of this, but I do think about it continuously. Q. Any emotional effects? A. In fact, I dream about it. Q. Any emotional or psychological injuries as a result of this? A. Emotionally, yes. Q. What are those injuries? A. I have to sit here, and every time I see a knife in one of the officer's hands I have to actually restrain myself from reacting because I don't know if they'll be allowed to do this again. And it has an emotional toll on me. As I say, I had dreams about this. I'm just not used to being on the receiving end of it. I mean, I've spent almost twenty years of my life in prison and never been cut by a prisoner or anyone, and I've got to be cut by an officer. That doesn't sit too well with me. Q. Are you receiving any treatment for your emotional injuries? A. Not pertaining to this particular incident, no. (Sims Dep. 55-56.) In September 2001, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Del Santo and two other defendants to whom, Sims testified, he had complained but who were not present at the December 20 incident.
In October 2001, the court granted a renewed request by Sims for the assignment of counsel; it appointed Jeffrey B. Korn, Esq., et al. Shortly thereafter, the remaining defendants served on Sims a demand for production of, inter alia, [a]ll psychiatric records of [Sims] since [Sims's] incarceration in 1993. (Defendants' Request for Documents, dated October 23, 2001, at 2.) The demand attached a document for Sims's signature to authorize the State's Office of Mental Health (OMH) to release any and all records or documents of any kind in [OMH's] possession pertaining to Nathaniel Sims, including but not limited to all medical, psychological and psychiatric reports and records, hospitalization records, doctors' notes, nurses' notes, correspondence, x-rays, charts and diagrams, laboratory and pathological reports and tests, and documents of any kind concerning examination and analyses, surgical and non-surgical procedures, diagnosis and prognosis, history and statements, bills and charges. ( Id., Attachment.) Sims, through his new attorneys, objected to the document request on the ground that the records requested were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned for supervision of pretrial proceedings initially granted defendants' request, ruling as follows: The Defendants are entitled to production of the Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment records. Although courts differ as to whether the assertion of a garden variety emotional distress claim requires a waiver of the psychiatrist-patient privilege, the Plaintiff's claim that he has become frightened of all knives as a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct is not, in my judgment, such a garden variety claim. Magistrate Judge's Order dated January 2, 2002 (First M.J. Order). Sims's attorneys promptly moved for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order, stating that Sims had not intended to place his mental or emotional state in issue, and stating, we hereby withdraw any claim Mr. Sims may have asserted to recover for `non-garden variety' emotional distress injuries, including `Plaintiff's claim that he has become frightened of all knives as a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct.' (Letter from Jeffrey B. Korn to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas dated January 7, 2002 (Korn Letter), at 1 (quoting First M.J. Order).) The letter elaborated: In Jaffee v. Redmond , the Supreme Court held that confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996). This privilege may be waived only where a party places his mental or emotional condition at issue by relying upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense. 3 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 504.01 (2d ed.1997). Here, however, Mr. Sims never intended to place his mental or emotional state at issue, and that condition is not an element of his Section 1983 claim. Indeed, Defendants' sole basis for asserting otherwise is Mr. Sims's undefended deposition testimony, elicited by defense counsel when Mr. Sims was a pro se litigant. At his deposition, Mr. Sims testified truthfullyand unguardedlyas to the emotional ramifications of the incident that is the subject of this action. ( See Sims Dep. at 55-56 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1).) But Mr. Sims did not plead in his complaint, or testify at his deposition, that he was seeking to recover for those emotional injuries i.e., he did not put them at issue for purposes of this litigation. ( See Complaint, filed Feb. 15, 2000 (attached hereto as Exhibit 2); Sims Dep. at 55-56.) In order to clarify the issue, we hereby withdraw any claim Mr. Sims may have asserted regarding non-garden variety emotional distress injuries. Mr. Sims will not offer any evidence or make any argument at trial about those injuries, and will not seek any recovery for them. In light of this representation, there is no longer any basis for a finding of waiver. (Korn Letter at 1 (emphasis in original).) After reviewing this request and the response from defense counsel, the magistrate judge reversed his previous ruling, stating: To the extent that Mr. Sims intends to testify generally that he was upset as a result of an assault, I consider his claim garden variety and not one which would warrant the broad disclosure sought by the defendants. If, on the other hand, he will seek to recover damages for some generalized fear that he had prior to the assault, the psychiatric records must be disclosed. Finally, the defendants do not need the psychiatric records to establish whether Mr. Sims was sent to the PSU for security reasons. If that were the case, some evidence of it surely would exist outside his psychiatric file. Magistrate Judge's Order dated January 10, 2002 (Revised M.J. Order) (emphasis in original).
On February 4, 2002, all of the remaining defendants except Blot and Caraballo were dismissed from the action by stipulation. Blot and Caraballo appealed the Revised M.J. Order to the district judge, who requested further submissions as to the effect of Sims's attorneys' claim-withdrawal representations on the issue of waiver. In response, Sims's attorneys wrote: [W]e do not intend to offer:  fact or expert testimony about a psychological disorder;  evidence concerning conversations between Mr. Sims and psychiatric personnel;  evidence concerning Mr. Sims's housing in the psychiatric satellite unit;  evidence that Mr. Sims made a fear of the Defendants known to mental health officials;  evidence that Mr. Sims was placed behind plexiglass, punched the plexiglass and as a result was admitted to the psychiatric satellite unit;  evidence that Mr. Sims was transferred to the psychiatric satellite unit after the incident or that he was transferred there for security rather than psychiatric reasons; or  evidence that Mr. Sims's mental health status affects his behavior. In light of those clarifications, it is clear that Mr. Sims does not seek to make his mental condition an issue at trial. Stated simply, Mr. Sims does not assert any claim or defense involving his mental condition, nor does he intend to offer any evidence concerning that condition. Rather, it is Defendants that seek to make Mr. Sims's mental health status an issue in this litigation in an attempt to obtain evidence to impeach his credibility at trial. However, as demonstrated in our letters dated January 22 and 25, 2002, that is insufficient to pierce Mr. Sims's psychiatrist-patient privilege. See Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 17, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996). (Letter from Jeffrey B. Korn and Antony L. Ryan to District Judge Loretta A. Preska dated February 11, 2002 (Korn/Ryan Letter), at 1.) In an order dated February 15, 2002, the district judge reversed the magistrate judge's January 10 denial of defendants' request for production of Sims's psychiatric records. As set forth more fully in Part II.B.2. below, the district judge ruled that Sims's deposition testimony constituted a waiver of his psychotherapist-patient privilege, and that [Sims] may not unring the bell. Once he waives his privilege ..., a witness may not withdraw his waiver to prevent matters which he has already gone into from being explored in greater detail. District Court Order dated February 15, 2002 (2002 Disclosure Order), at 1 (quoting United States ex rel. Carthan v. Sheriff, 330 F.2d 100, 102 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 929, 85 S.Ct. 323, 13 L.Ed.2d 341 (1964)). The district judge found that Sims had testified freely as to communications with mental health professionals and as to the supposed circumstances of his placement in the PSU; that he did so in an effort to support his claim and otherwise gain advantage in this litigation; and that fairness requires that Blot and Caraballo have access to plaintiff's mental health records for the period from two years before the incident at issue through the present because otherwise Blot and Caraballo would be disadvantaged both specifically in their inability to, for example, prove ... that [Sims] was not [ sic ] placed in the PSU for psychiatric reasons and generally in not being able to test [Sims's] credibility. 2002 Disclosure Order at 2.
Sims filed a petition in this Court for a writ of mandamus, seeking reversal of the 2002 Disclosure Order. Before that petition could be heard, Blot and Caraballo moved in the district court for summary judgment dismissing Sims's action on the ground that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We held Sims's mandamus petition in abeyance pending resolution of the motion to dismiss his action, and that petition eventually became moot. In August 2003, the district court dismissed the action, without prejudice to renewal after proper exhaustion of all available administrative remedies.