Sandlin v. Humphrey et al
ORDER denying pltf's 219 Motion in Limine; granting defts' 222 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 4/28/11. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CHRISTOPHER R. SANDLIN ADC #136830
CASE NO. 2:09CV00051 JMM
MICHAEL T. HUMPHREY, ET AL.
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Mental Health
Records and all Other Disciplinary Records and Testimony (#219) and Defendants’ Motion in
Limine (#222). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied and Defendants’
motion is granted.
Plaintiff’s request to exclude all evidence related to his mental health and disciplinary
records are based upon the protections set forth in the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and his contention that any medical records unrelated to the
October 9, 2008 alleged attack are not relevant and lack probative value.
The Court finds that Plaintiff waived his HIPAA protection when he filed this lawsuit and
that Plaintiff’s mental health and disciplinary records which would have impact on the October 9,
2008 incident are relevant to the issues of this case.
Defendants seek to exclude any reference to (1) Plaintiff’s transfer to the Varner Super
Max Unit; (2) any evidence or testimony regarding other grievances written against the
Defendants by Plaintiff, or other inmates, pertaining to other incidents; (3) any adverse
employment actions received by the Defendants during the course of their employment with the
Arkansas Department of Corrections (“ADC”); (4) Defendants’ personnel files and work history
with the ADC; and (5) records or testimony regarding Defendants’ interactions with other
inmates not directly related to the events of October 9, 2008.
As previously stated, Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit are solely based upon an alleged
incident that occurred on October 9, 2008, and involve only allegations of excessive force and
denial of medical care by Defendants Seccer Cole and Michael Humphrey. Allegations regarding
Plaintiff’s transfer in 2010 to Varner are not relevant to this case and neither are Defendants’
personnel files including any adverse employment actions, grievances previously filed by
Plaintiff or other inmates, work history unless such evidence is directly related to the October 9,
Finally, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for a jury instruction on spoliation of the
evidence and restrict any testimony regarding this issue at trial. Plaintiff contends that
Defendants have withheld or destroyed a video tape of the October 9, 2008 cell extraction.
However, Plaintiff’s own testimony is that that he became complaint which negated the use of
any video tape to record a cell extraction.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28
April , 2011.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?