P. 1
Oren Ungerleider Complaint

Oren Ungerleider Complaint

|Views: 534|Likes:

The full complaint filed by Oren Ungerleider in his lawsuit against Columbia and Continuum Health Partners over his 30-day hospitalization at St. Luke's. Read more here: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2013/02/02/lawsuit-student-committed-st-lukes-30-days-after-cursing-professor

The full complaint filed by Oren Ungerleider in his lawsuit against Columbia and Continuum Health Partners over his 30-day hospitalization at St. Luke's. Read more here: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2013/02/02/lawsuit-student-committed-st-lukes-30-days-after-cursing-professor

More info:

Published by: Columbia Daily Spectator on Feb 02, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/17/2013

pdf

text

original

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X OREN UNGERLEIDER, Plaintiff, -againstCONTINUUM HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., DR. CLEMENS HEIDERHOFF, DR. KARIN DORELL, DR. TARA MALEKSHAHI, DR. HOWARD MILLMAN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, STEPHANIE NIXON, HAZEL MAY, and New York City police officers JOHN DOES #1-3, each in their individual capacity, Defendants. Demand for Jury Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff Oren Ungerleider, by and through his attorneys LeBow & Associates, PLLC, complains of the Defendants, and each of them, as follows: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Oren Ungerleider brings this action under 42 USC §§1983 and 1988 to redress Defendants’ violations of the rights and immunities secured to Plaintiff by the United States Constitution. Plaintiff was a student at Columbia University who cursed at his Spanish teacher after he felt he was graded unfairly. After that incident, Columbia official Nixon called the NYPD, possibly under May’s direction, and officers Does #1-3 arrested Plaintiff based on Nixon’s statements, and took Plaintiff to the mental health ward at St. Luke’s Hospital to be involuntarily committed. At St. Luke’s Hospital, doctors Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman all certified the continuation of Plaintiff’s involuntary commitment despite the fact that they knew or should have known that he was not dangerous to himself or others. Plaintiff was 1 COMPLAINT

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 17

eventually held at St. Luke’s for 30 days, which caused him severe emotional distress, and great disruption in his education and his life. While at St. Luke’s, Plaintiff was given medications against his will. Plaintiff asserts claims against Continuum Health Partners, Inc. (which operates St. Luke’s, hereinafter “Continuum”), Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman for false imprisonment and involuntary medication, and against Columbia, Nixon, May, and Does #1-3 for false arrest and false imprisonment. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages from all Defendants.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over the federal civil rights claims asserted herein against Defendants Continuum, Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, Millman, Columbia, Nixon, May, and Does #1-3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(3). Venue in this district is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims described herein occurred in the Southern District of New York.

III. PARTIES 2. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Oren Ungerleider was a student at Columbia University, residing at the Columbia dormitory at 411 West 116th Street, New York, New York 10025, and a citizen of the United States. 3. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Columbia University in the City of New York (“Columbia”) was a private university at the address 2960 Broadway, New York, New York 10027. Plaintiff attended Columbia at the time of the events herein, and Columbia employed Defendants Nixon and May.

2

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 3 of 17

4. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Continuum Health Partners, Inc. (“Continuum”) was a non-profit hospital system that operates medical facilities including St. Luke’s Hospital (“St. Luke’s”) at 1111 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10027, which operates the mental health ward in which Plaintiff was involuntarily committed. 5. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dr. Clemens Heiderhoff was a medical doctor employed by St. Luke’s to examine, treat and care for patients diagnosed with a mental disorder, disease or illness, and specifically examines whether a patient may be involuntarily committed as a danger to himself or others. Dr. Heiderhoff personally examined Plaintiff, and made specific findings leading to Plaintiff's unlawful confinement, all while acting under the color of state law. 6. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dr. Karin Dorell was a medical doctor employed by St. Luke’s to examine, treat and care for patients diagnosed with a mental disorder, disease or illness, and specifically examines whether a patient may be involuntarily committed as a danger to himself or others. Dr. Dorell personally examined Plaintiff, and made specific findings leading to Plaintiff's unlawful confinement, all while acting under the color of state law. 7. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dr. Tara Malekshahi was a medical doctor employed by St. Luke’s to examine, treat and care for patients diagnosed with a mental disorder, disease or illness, and specifically examines whether a patient may be involuntarily committed as a danger to himself or others. Dr. Malekshahi personally examined Plaintiff, and made specific findings leading to Plaintiff's unlawful confinement, all while acting under the color of state law. 8. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dr. Howard Millman was a medical doctor and the unit chief at St. Luke’s’ adult inpatient psychiatry unit (mental health ward), in which Plaintiff was committed. On information and belief, Dr. Millman is the policy-maker for St. Luke’s mental health ward regarding all aspects of patient care, treatment, and involuntary

3

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 4 of 17

commitment, and he also has supervisory responsibility for the treatment and care provided by the staff, with attendant responsibility for the training, discipline, and retention of staff. Defendant Millman also personally evaluated and examined Plaintiff herein, and made specific findings leading to Plaintiff's unlawful confinement, all while acting under the color of state law. 9. At all times relevant herein, Defendants Does #1-3 were NYPD officers, likely from the 26th Precinct in Harlem, which has jurisdiction over Columbia and St. Luke’s. 10. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Hazel May was a Columbia assistant to the Dean, and had supervisory authority over Nixon. 11. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Stephanie Nixon was Columbia’s Director of Residential Programs.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Oren Ungerleider was a student at Columbia University. Plaintiff had no history of being cited for any mental health issues in the past. Prior to the events herein, Plaintiff was an accomplished classical violinist who had performed with professional orchestras, had won competitions, and had toured internationally. 13. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Columbia was a private university that Plaintiff attended and that employed Nixon and May. 14. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Continuum was a non-profit hospital system that operates medical facilities including St. Luke’s. 15. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dr. Clemens Heiderhoff was a doctor in St. Luke’s mental health unit.

4

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 5 of 17

16. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dr. Karin Dorell was a doctor in St. Luke’s mental health unit. 17. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dr. Tara Malekshahi was a doctor in St. Luke’s mental health unit. 18. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Dr. Howard Millman was a doctor in St. Luke’s mental health unit, and the unit chief of the mental health unit, with supervisory authority over Heiderhoff, Dorell, and Malekshahi. 19. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Does #1-3 were NYPD officers. 20. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Hazel May was a Columbia assistant to the Dean, with supervisory authority over Nixon. 21. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Stephanie Nixon was Columbia’s Director of Residential Programs. 22. On or about December 20, 2010, at around 3:00 PM, Plaintiff went to his final exam in Spanish. Before the final exam started, the teacher was handing out grades for the final project that was done by pairs of students the week before. The teacher gave Plaintiff’s final project partner a note with the grade 80/100, and gave Plaintiff a note stating “Your Spanish is horrible. You didn’t say one word correctly. 50/100, F.” 23. On information and belief, Plaintiff handed the teacher back the note, called her a bitch, sat down, waited five minutes, and when the teacher handed him a copy of the final exam, he handed it right back and left the room, while telling the class he was sorry for the disruption. 24. On or about December 21, 2010, Plaintiff emailed Hazel May, a Columbia assistant to the Dean, saying that he admitted to using bad language in a Spanish class, was sorry for it, and thought that the teacher was grading him unfairly.

5

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 6 of 17

25. On or about December 21, 2010, at around 2:00 PM, Plaintiff met with Ms. May, and again said that he apologized for using bad language in a Spanish class. Plaintiff showed Ms. May his final project and the note he received from the teacher as evidence that his grade was unfairly low. Ms. May told Plaintiff that she wanted him to see a psychiatrist. 26. On information and belief, Ms. May directed Stephanie Nixon, Columbia’s Director of Residential Programs, to go to Plaintiff’s room that night. 27. On or about December 22, 2010, at around 12:30 AM, Ms. Nixon knocked on Plaintiff’s dorm room’s door. Plaintiff did not answer. The door then became unlocked, and Plaintiff walked over to shut it. Next, three Columbia security officers entered the room. 28. On information and belief, Ms. Nixon handed Plaintiff an official letter with a Columbia header stating that he had a judicial hearing in response to profanity used in a Spanish class. Ms. Nixon told Plaintiff that she wanted him to see a campus psychiatrist. Plaintiff asked her who she was, why she was in his room at 12:30 AM, and why she had any right to be in his room when there were no allegations of guns, drugs, or violence, and no warrant. 29. On information and belief, Ms. Nixon then stepped out of Plaintiff’s dorm room to call the NYPD, and told the three Columbia security officers to keep Plaintiff in the room. NYPD officers Does #1-3 arrived at Plaintiff’s dorm room, handcuffed him, escorted him into an ambulance, and drove him to St. Luke's. Does #1-3 did not conduct any investigation, and did not ask Plaintiff for his side of the story, and only one officer even said anything to him, and that was only to tell him that they were bringing him to the hospital. 30. On or about December 22, 2010, at around 1:00 AM, Plaintiff was brought to a room at St. Luke’s. A psychiatrist entered the room and interviewed Plaintiff, and after that The

psychiatrist left, another psychiatrist entered the room and interviewed Plaintiff.

6

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 7 of 17

psychiatrists asked Plaintiff whether he took marijuana or other drugs that day. Plaintiff was insulted by their questions, found them rude, and refused to even respond. One of the

psychiatrists told Plaintiff that he wanted him to stay the night at the hospital. Plaintiff said no, and started to walk out of the room. 31. On information and belief, three doctors came over, tackled Plaintiff, and forcefully injected him with a liquid containing the drug Haldol. Plaintiff repeatedly asked them, "what are you sticking in my body?", but they did not respond. The substance sedated Plaintiff and he could barely walk. He was then asked to urinate in a cup to check for drugs in his system. Shortly thereafter, he fell asleep from the sedation, and has no further memories from that night. 32. On or about December 22, 2010, at around 6:30 AM, Plaintiff awoke and was examined by Dr. Clemens Heiderhoff, who signed a certification for Plaintiff’s involuntary commitment. 33. On or about December 22, 2010, at around 8:00 AM, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Karin Dorell, who signed a certification for Plaintiff’s involuntary commitment, and noted that Plaintiff had no previous psychiatric history. 34. On or about December 22, 2010, at or around 8:30 AM, Plaintiff asked to be allowed to leave, but was not allowed to leave. 35. On or about December 22, 2010, at or around 3:15 PM, Plaintiff’s brother Tavi came to visit him. Tavi asked to remove Plaintiff from the hospital, but the staff refused to release him. 36. On or about December 23, 2010, Plaintiff met with Dr. Tara Malekshahi, who described him as “cooperative, pleasant, and calm”, but stated that he had “grandiose and paranoid delusions” and an illogical and at times incoherent thought process, and called for

7

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 8 of 17

holding Plaintiff based on Dr. Heiderhoff and Dr. Dorell’s certifications, and giving Plaintiff anti-psychotic medication. Dr. Malekshahi also noted that Plaintiff had no previous

psychological history. St. Luke’s unit chief Dr. Howard Millman signed Dr. Malekshahi’s report. 37. From December 23, 2010 through January 21, 2011, Dr. Millman examined Plaintiff numerous times, and supported Plaintiff’s continued commitment. 38. On or about January 4, 2011, Plaintiff made a request for a court hearing to challenge his continued hospitalization. 39. On or about January 6, 2011, Plaintiff was taken to court. Dr. Millman stated that there was a possibility of schizophrenia, but he did not state that there was an actual diagnosis of schizophrenia. Dr. Millman started talking about how Plaintiff’s grades at Columbia dropped, how Plaintiff didn't practice much violin anymore, how Plaintiff didn't talk to his parents every day, and specifically that Plaintiff didn't want to see his parents while in the mental ward. Plaintiff was only able to talk for about ten seconds before being cut off, and was only able to say that “everything Mr. Millman said was wrong”, and to disagree with some specific points, stating that the decline in his grades does not show that he was a risk to harm himself or anyone else, and that he did not commit physical violence against any teachers. The court ruled that St. Luke’s could continue to hold Plaintiff. 40. During the time of Plaintiff’s commitment in St. Luke’s, he was placed in dangerous and traumatizing situations, including being in the constant presence of dangerous mentally ill individuals, being put in therapy groups with the severely mentally ill, and being forcibly medicated. 41. On or about January 21, 2011, Plaintiff was released from St. Luke’s.

8

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 9 of 17

42. After January 21, 2011, Plaintiff was not able to return to Columbia, and had to take a year and a half away from continuing his university studies before enrolling in the Ohio State University for the fall term of 2012-3. 43. After January 21, 2011, Plaintiff lost any desire to play the violin, which had been an important part of his life. 44. After January 21, 2011, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress from his confinement at St. Luke’s, and frequently has recurring thoughts about the trauma he experienced there.

V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS False Imprisonment (Against Defendants Continuum, Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman) 45. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 44 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 46. As a result of the actions of Defendants Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman, which began on or about December 22, 2010, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the United States Constitution and federal civil rights law. Plaintiff’s rights are secured by provisions of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983. 47. The actions of Defendants Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman were committed under the color of law, since (1) they committed Plaintiff to St. Luke’s under instruction from NYPD officers, (2) they were performing the public function of involuntary commitment, and (3) from January 6, 2011 through January 21, 2011, they continued to confine Plaintiff pursuant to a court order.

9

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 10 of 17

48. The actions of Defendants Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman were intentional and willful. 49. On and after December 22, 2010, Defendants Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman intended to confine Plaintiff. 50. On and after December 22, 2010, Plaintiff was conscious of being confined. 51. On and after December 22, 2010, Plaintiff at no time consented to being confined by Defendants Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman. From the very beginning of his involuntary commitment on December 22, 2010, Plaintiff voiced his objection to his involuntary commitment at St. Luke’s, and continued to do so throughout his involuntary commitment, and Defendants Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman were aware of Plaintiff’s objections. 52. On or about December 22, 2010, Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman knew the following information about Plaintiff, in addition to their examinations of him: (1) he had cursed at his Spanish teacher, (2) he refused to open the door to Ms. Nixon, a Columbia residential official, and (3) he had no previous history of mental health issues. 53. On or about December 22, 2010, Heiderhoff and Dorell signed certifications that stated that (1) Plaintiff was in need of involuntary care and treatment, because he had a mental illness for which care and treatment in a mental hospital was essential for his welfare, and his judgment was so impaired that he was unable to understand the need for such treatment, and (2) as a result of his mental illness, he posed a substantial risk of harm to himself or others, because of his inability to meet his own needs or a history of dangerous conduct. 54. On or about December 23, 2010, Malekshahi called for holding Plaintiff involuntarily based on her own examination and Heiderhoff and Dorell’s certifications.

10

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 11 of 17

55. On or about December 23, 2010, Millman approved Malekshahi’s call to hold Plaintiff involuntarily. 56. From December 23, 2010 through January 21, 2011, Millman examined Plaintiff several times, and called for continuing to hold Plaintiff involuntarily. 57. Plaintiff was held at St. Luke’s against his will until January 21, 2011. 58. Reasonable doctors in the position of Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman could not have reasonably believed that Plaintiff posed a substantial risk of harm to himself or others based on their examinations of Plaintiff and the other information available to them, and therefore they did not have probable cause to call for Plaintiff’s involuntary commitment. 59. For Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman to conclude that Plaintiff posed a substantial risk of harm to himself or others based on their examinations of Plaintiff and the other information available to them was a significant deviation from generally accepted medical standards. 60. For Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman to cause Plaintiff to be committed involuntarily when they could not have reasonably believed that Plaintiff posed a substantial risk of harm to himself or others based on their examinations of Plaintiff and the other information available to them was a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. 61. In view of the fact that Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman intended to confine Plaintiff, Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement, Plaintiff did not consent to his confinement, and the confinement was not privileged since they did not have probable cause to involuntarily commit Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s confinement was therefore unlawful and actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

11

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 12 of 17

62. The actions of Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman amounted to false imprisonment under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 63. Managerial personnel at St. Luke’s, including Millman, created the policy and custom under which St. Luke’s doctors would certify Plaintiff and individuals like him for involuntary commitment despite the fact that they could not reasonably be thought of by competent psychiatric personnel as being dangerous to themselves or others, and doing so without probable cause, in violation of those individuals’ constitutional rights. That policy and custom was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s involuntary commitment and false imprisonment, and Continuum as the owner and operator of St. Luke’s is therefore responsible for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s false imprisonment, Plaintiff was caused to suffer confinement in a mental health ward for 30 days, a loss of freedom and liberty, great mental anguish, emotional distress, public humiliation, and dangerous conditions during the time of his confinement, the disruption of his education and social life, lost future income and opportunities due to having to leave Columbia University, the end of his musical activities and passion for the violin, and continuing emotional distress as a result of his confinement.

VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS Involuntary Medication (Against Defendants Continuum, Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman) 65. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 64 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 12

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 13 of 17

66. From December 22, 2010 through January 21, 2011, Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman caused Plaintiff to be medicated against his will, and without probable cause to believe that he was a danger to himself or others, and thereby violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 67. Managerial personnel at St. Luke’s, including Millman, created the policy and custom under which St. Luke’s doctors would medicate Plaintiff and individuals like him against their will despite the fact that they could not reasonably be thought of by competent psychiatric personnel as being dangerous to themselves or others, and doing so without probable cause, in violation of those individuals’ constitutional rights. That policy and custom was the proximate cause of Plaintiff being subjected to medication against his will, and Continuum as the owner and operator of St. Luke’s is therefore responsible for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 68. As a direct and proximate result of Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, and Millman’s forcing medications on Plaintiff against his will, and without probable cause to believe that he was a danger to himself or others, Plaintiff experienced a violation of his personal liberty and of the dignity of his body, experienced emotional distress, and may suffer physical and mental health effects from the medications he was given.

VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS False Arrest and False Imprisonment (Against Defendants Columbia, May, Nixon, and Does #1-3) 69. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 68 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 13

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 14 of 17

70. As a result of the actions of Defendants May, Nixon, and Does, which began on or about December 22, 2010, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the United States Constitution and federal civil rights law. Plaintiff’s rights are secured by provisions of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983. 71. The actions of Defendants May, Nixon, and Does were committed under the color of law and were intentional and willful. 72. On or about December 22, 2010, Defendants May and Nixon intended to have Plaintiff arrested and confined in a mental hospital, and Defendants Does intended to arrest Plaintiff and confine Plaintiff in a mental hospital. 73. On or about December 22, 2010, Plaintiff was conscious of being arrested and confined in a mental hospital. 74. On or about December 22, 2010, Plaintiff at no time consented to being arrested and confined by Defendants Does, but nonetheless cooperated with them because they were NYPD officers acting in an official capacity. 75. On or about December 22, 2010, Nixon, acting under May’s direction, gave information to Does that resulted in Plaintiff’s arrest and confinement in St. Luke’s. 76. On information and belief, it is not clear what Nixon told Does. If Nixon told Does the truth – that the only actions Plaintiff had committed were (1) one curse word directed at a teacher who he felt had treated him unfairly, (2) his refusal to open his door at 12:30 AM, and (3) his objection to Nixon and the security officers entering his room without suspicion of criminal activity or a warrant, then Does would have had no probable cause to arrest Plaintiff and take him to St. Luke’s for confinement. If instead, Nixon falsified or exaggerated Plaintiff’s actions to Does in order to have Plaintiff arrested and taken to St. Luke for confinement, then

14

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 15 of 17

Nixon and May would be responsible for having Plaintiff arrested and taken to a mental health ward based on false or incomplete information. 77. On or about December 22, 2010, any reasonable officer in Does’ position would have allowed Plaintiff to tell his side of the story, or at least conversed with him, before concluding that he was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others, and before arresting him for confinement in a mental hospital, and Does failed to do so. 78. On or about December 22, 2010, if the information from Nixon was truthful, any reasonable officer in Does’ position would have seen that the information from Nixon about Plaintiff’s actions was insufficient to establish the belief that he was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others, and would not have arrested him for confinement in a mental hospital. 79. On or about December 22, 2010, based on the facts and circumstances known to Does at the time they seized Plaintiff, they did not have sufficient information about Plaintiff that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that he might be mentally ill and conducting himself in a manner likely to result in serious harm to himself or others. 80. In view of the fact that Does did not have sufficient information about Plaintiff that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that he might be mentally ill and conducting himself in a manner likely to result in serious harm to himself or others, they did not have probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, and take Plaintiff to St. Luke’s to be confined there. 81. That neither on nor about December 22, 2010, nor at any other relevant time herein, did such a warrant for Plaintiff’s arrest and confinement exist, and a court order for Plaintiff’s confinement did not exist at the time he was initially taken to St. Luke’s by Does. 82. In view of the fact that Defendants Nixon and May intended to have Plaintiff arrested and confined in a mental hospital, Does intended to arrest and confine Plaintiff in a mental

15

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 16 of 17

hospital, Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement and did not consent to it, and the confinement was not privileged since it was not conducted pursuant to a warrant or probable cause, Plaintiff’s confinement was therefore unlawful and actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 83. The actions of Defendants Nixon, May, and Does amounted to false arrest and false imprisonment under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 84. Managerial personnel at Columbia created the policy and custom under which Columbia personnel would arrange for Plaintiff and individuals like him to be arrested and involuntarily committed despite the fact that they could not reasonably be thought of by competent psychiatric personnel as being dangerous to themselves or others, and doing so without probable cause, in violation of those individuals’ constitutional rights. That policy and custom was the proximate cause of Plaintiff being involuntarily committed, and Columbia is responsible for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 85. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment, Plaintiff was caused to suffer confinement in a mental health ward for 30 days, a loss of freedom and liberty, great mental anguish, emotional distress, public humiliation, and dangerous conditions during the time of his confinement, the disruption of his education and social life, lost future income and opportunities due to having to leave Columbia University, the end of his musical activities and passion for the violin, and continuing emotional distress as a result of his confinement.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against each of Continuum, Heiderhoff, Dorell, Malekshahi, Millman, Columbia, Nixon, May, and Does #1-3 in the amount of Five

16

Case 1:13-cv-00410-LTS Document 1

Filed 01/17/13 Page 17 of 17

Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in compensatory damages and Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in punitive damages on the first, second, and third causes of action, together with attorneys’ fees, and the costs and disbursements associated with bringing this action.

Dated: New York, New York January 17, 2013

Respectfully submitted, LEBOW & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

_______________________ James B. LeBow, Esq. (JL4535) 570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor New York, New York 10022 Tel. (212) 868-3311 Fax (646) 619-4555

17

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->