Whitall v. Gutierrez

Background

Raymond Richard Whitall asserts an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim based on an incident on February 28, 2017. Judge Breyer had also reinstated Whitall’s state-law claims arising from the same incident, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and claims involving battery, unnecessary force, dependent-adult abuse, endangerment, and the Bane Act.

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 to require Whitall to undergo a mental examination. Rule 35 permits such an examination only when the person’s mental condition is “in controversy” and the moving party shows “good cause.” The court explained that the moving party must make an affirmative, fact-based showing of both requirements.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Whitall’s mental condition was “in controversy” because he had a pending claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court also considered his allegations that the incident caused post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, worsened depression and anxiety, fearfulness, isolation, and severe and ongoing mental and emotional distress. Whitall testified that a prison psychologist diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder and that his depression and anxiety worsened after the incident.

The court nevertheless found that the defendants failed to show “good cause.” It characterized the emotional distress Whitall claimed as the type that a victim of a beating might ordinarily claim and found no apparent unusual or rare condition requiring expert examination. The court also determined that Whitall’s prison medical and psychological records, together with his deposition testimony, were sufficient for the defendants to evaluate his claimed emotional-distress damages.

The defendants argued that an examination was needed to address apportionment because Whitall sought emotional-distress damages in another lawsuit. The court rejected that argument, reasoning that Whitall’s testimony about preexisting depression and anxiety, his other lawsuit, and the defendants’ possession of his prison medical records were sufficient to allow them to develop arguments that other causes contributed to his distress.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to compel the mental examination. The court overruled Whitall’s objection to a declaration submitted with the defendants’ reply and denied the defendants’ motion to strike that objection as moot. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson.