Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Nominal Damages Upheld in Excessive Force Case

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury award of only
nominal damages in a case involving excessive force by New York State
prison guards.

Vincent Van Ness, a prisoner in custody of the New York Department of
Correctional Services (DOCS), sued DOCS guards Anthony Lorenzo and Eddie
Cruz under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Van Ness claimed that Lorenzo and Cruz
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force during
a "pat frisk" in August 1997. At trial, a jury found Cruz, but not
Lorenzo, liable, and awarded nominal damages of $1.00 to Van Ness. Van
Ness appealed.

Van Ness argued that the defendants deliberately withheld certain of his
medical records, thus misrepresenting the extent of his injuries. He also
argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the
district court abused its discretion by denying him the right to introduce
evidence of prior uses of force by Cruz and Lorenzo.

The Court of Appeals declined to hear Van Ness' claim of withheld evidence
because it was raised for the first time on appeal. The appeals court
affirmed its prior holdings that litigants in civil cases are not entitled
to effective assistance of counsel. Finally, the appeals court affirmed
the district court's refusal to admit evidence concerning prior uses of
force. The appeals court noted that the district court concluded, after
review, that the evidence Van Ness sought to introduce had only nominal
probative value and would cause undue delay in the proceedings. "Although
other conclusions are possible, we cannot say that the district court's
decision was an abuse of its discretion," the appeals court ruled.
The district court's decision was affirmed. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
Van Ness v. Cruz, 53 Fed.Appx. 164 (2nd Cir. 2002).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

Van Ness v. Cruz

[U] 53 Fed.Appx. 164 (2d Cir. 12/20/2002)

[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


[2] No. 00-199


[3] 53 Fed.Appx. 164, 2002


[4] December 20, 2002


[5] VINCENT VANNESS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
EDDIE CRUZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.


[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Casey, J.).


[7] For Plaintiff-Appellant: VINCENT Vanness, pro se, Auburn, NY


[8] For Defendant-Appellee: Nicola N. Grey, Assistant Attorney General, (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Marion R. Buchbinder, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), New York, NY


[9] Present: Hon. Thomas J. Meskill, Hon. Guido Calabresi, Hon. Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Circuit Judges


[10] SUMMARY ORDER


[11] THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.


[12] At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of December, two thousand and two.


[13] UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT BE AND IT HEREBY IS AFFIRMED.


[14] Plaintiff-Appellant Vincent Van Ness, an inmate incarcerated with the New York Department of Corrections, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 against corrections officers Anthony Lorenzo and Eddie Cruz, alleging that the officers violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force against him during a "pat frisk" outside his cell in August 1997.


[15] The suit sought monetary damages for "pain and suffering, mental stress, and cruel and unusual punishment." In due course the suit proceeded to trial, where a jury found Officer Cruz liable, and Officer Lorenzo not liable, for violating Van Ness's constitutional rights. The jury awarded Van Ness nominal damages of $1.00.


[16] On appeal, pro se, Van Ness asserts (1) that by withholding certain medical records, the defendants and their counsel deliberately concealed and misrepresented the extent of Van Ness's injuries; (2) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (3) that the district court abused its discretion by denying Van Ness the right to introduce evidence of prior uses of force by Officers Cruz and Lorenzo. We reject each of these claims.


[17] First, absent special circumstances, a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21 (1976). Appellant did not raise below his claim that the defendants withheld his medical records. Because no circumstances exist to warrant departure from our general rule, we deem the issue forfeited and decline to address it.


[18] As to Appellant's second claim, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of counsel in a civil case. United States v. Coven, 662 F.2d 162, 176 (2d Cir. 1981). Therefore, complaints about one's attorney in a civil case provide no basis for reversal on appeal. Finally, we review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to admit evidence of other crimes. See United States v. Bok, 156 F.3d 157, 165 (2d Cir. 1998). "[T]o find an abuse of that discretion we must be persuaded that the trial judge ruled in an arbitrary and irrational fashion." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 404(b) provides, in relevant part, that while "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith," such evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as "proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, [or] plan." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Even where such evidence is admissible for those purposes, however, the district court may exclude it when the danger of unfair prejudice or undue delay outweighs its potential probative value. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. After hearing from both parties and considering the issue, the district court concluded that the evidence Appellant sought to introduce would cause undue delay, and was of only nominal probative value. Although other conclusions are possible, we cannot say that the district court's decision was an abuse of its discretion.


[19] We have considered all of Appellant's claims and find them meritless. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.