Scott v. Benson

• Citation: 863 F.Supp.2d 836
• Decision Date: 30 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–CV–4055–DEO.,11–CV–4055–DEO.
• Parties: Daniel J. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. Mary BENSON, ARNP, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

863 F.Supp.2d 836

Daniel J. SCOTT, Plaintiff,

v.Mary BENSON, ARNP, et al., Defendants.

No. 11–CV–4055–DEO.

United States District Court,

N.D. Iowa,

Western Division.

April 30, 2012.

Patrick Thomas Parry, Forker & Parry, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Department of Justice, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(Docket No. 33)

DONALD E. O'BRIEN, Senior District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction (Docket No. 20), and a hearing was held before Chief Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss. Following the hearing on March 19, 2012, Judge Zoss issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket No. 33) that allowed for parties' objections to be filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), within fourteen days of the service of the R & R. No objections are before this Court.

The background as set out in the R & R will not be repeated here, but the same is referenced as if fully set out herein.

The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 33), provides the legal standard for determining whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate and sets out each of the pertinent factors in turn: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm to the plaintiff; (3) balance of equities; and (4) public interest.¹

After a thorough analysis, the R & R concludes that the Dataphase/Winter factors outlined in the R & R weigh against issuing a preliminary injunction; and it is recommended the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction be denied.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Pursuant to statute, this Court's standard of review for a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is as follows:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides for review of a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation on dispositive motions and prisoner petitions, where objections are made as follows:

The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

As mentioned, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed; and it appears to the Court upon review of Chief Magistrate Judge Zoss's findings and conclusions that there are no grounds to reject or modify them.

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that this Court accepts Chief Magistrate Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 33). The plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Docket No. 20) is hereby denied.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAUL A. ZOSS, United States Chief Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 20) and supporting brief (Doc. No. 31). The defendants filed a resistance. Doc. No. 26. On March 19, 2012, the undersigned held a telephonic hearing on the motion. The plaintiff appeared with his attorney, Patrick Parry. The defendants Mary Benson, ARNP, and Dr. Jason Smith appeared with their attorney, Assistant Attorney General Gretchen Kraemer. This matter is now fully submitted, and the undersigned issues the following report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.d.

Background

The plaintiff is a detainee at the Civil Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders (“CCUSO”). The defendant Mary Benson is an advanced registered nurse practitioner who treats the plaintiff. Doc. No. 26–2 ¶ 3. According to Ms. Benson, the plaintiff “has diabetes and will not adhere to a recommended dietary or self-care regimen. Because of his poor management of his diabetes, he is more prone to infections.” Id. ¶ 6. In September 2010, the plaintiff suffered a heart attack due to three blocked arteries, which precluded surgical intervention. The plaintiff, however, refused recommended medications. Id. ¶ 9.

The plaintiff was admitted to the hospital in October 2010. Id. ¶ 10. After the plaintiff's discharge almost month later, a nutritional assessment by the hospital recommended a special low-sodium and low-potassium diet of 2,200 calories. Id. In December 2010, the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for kidney failure; upon his discharge, a low-sodium and low-potassium diet again was recommended. Id. ¶ 11. The plaintiff refused to see specialists in Iowa City from January to June 2011. Id. ¶ 13.

On June 13, 2011, the plaintiff signed a written form indicating his refusal to participate in recommended health care procedures including (1) “[a]ll medical recommended diets placed on [him] by Mary Benson ARNP”; (2) “[a]ll medical recommended diets placed upon [him] by the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, or by any and all medical staff thereof”; and (3) “[a]ll medical recommended Commissary Restrictions, placed upon [him] by Mary Benson ARNP.” Doc. No. 26–4.

In his affidavit dated January 25, 2012, the plaintiff states the following: “I was awarded Phase 3 of the program, in December 2011. With the advancement of Phase 3, patients are allowed incentive privileges, Hy–Vee Chicken, once per month or Pizza Hut Pizza once per month, and McDonald orders twice a month.” Doc. No. 20–1 at 3. According to the plaintiff, Ms. Benson has prevented him from enjoying these incentives, explaining that

[s]ince October 2010, Mary Benson has restricted me from spending my own U.S. currency of free will. For she has forced me on a diet for the past year and three months, and would not allow me to receive certain foods sent in by my family at Christmas times[.] [O]n December 15, 2010 I was sent in a Christmas package by Roberta J. Turner, (my mother), and Mary Benson ordered the property officer PSS Pingle to confiscate all foods from the package, and he issued me [an] unsigned copy of foods taken, and it says that all of it was sent to MHI Dietary Staff for review, and the dietician said these foods were not allowed per the Diet that Mary Benson ARNP, put me on and is forcing me to eat.

Doc. No. 20–1 at 1.

According to Ms. Benson, however,

CCUSO maintained Mr. Scott on the special diet ordered by the physicians in Iowa City since December 2010. At all times, Mr. Scott has been provided a nutritionally adequate diet. Mr. Scott's blood sugars became normal and his A1C adjusted to the level that he no longer has diabetes. Laboratory results for his kidney failure remain in normal limits. He does not require dialysis. He has had no further heart issues. Mr. Scott required no hospitalization in 2011. Mr. Scott continues to refuse all medication except medication for pain and sleep. I believe these positive results are attributable directly to the diet.

Doc. No. 26–2 ¶ 12.

In his request for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff maintains as follows:

1. The Defendants have prohibited Plaintiff from purchasing or keeping any non-CCUSO provided food supplies including: food from outside vendors; food sent by family members and commissary items.... All of these food items may be obtained and kept by all other CCUSO patients.

2. The Plaintiff believes that the Defendants will assert that the restrictions have been imposed due to health conditions. However, Plaintiff asserts that some of the prohibited items, including vegetables, are not contraindicated by the Plaintiff's health conditions.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that these food restrictions are retaliation for his request not to pursue additional medical treatment.

4. The Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury to his health if these food restrictions continue as he is unable to meet his basic nutritional needs without supplemental food items.

“The Plaintiff asserts that he requires additional calories beyond the meals provided by the CCUSO and that he will continue to suffer weight loss and other health problems if he cannot receive outside food items.” Doc. No. 31 at 2. “The Plaintiff asserts that he understands the risks to his own health by consuming food that may not be ideal for him and assumes the risk of eating outside food.” Id. According to the plaintiff, “[a]ssuming that [he] can establish weight loss or other health problems caused by excluding outside food, [he] can establish a reasonable probability of success on the merits.” Id. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserts that “the public's interest is best served by ensuring that [he] is able to receive the same privileges and treatment accorded to all other individuals in the CCUSO to ensure consistent policy and to avoid further § 1983 claims.” Id. The plaintiff finally maintains that he

possesses a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of a forced diet under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [He] has a protected liberty interest here in refusing a forced medical diet where he is competent and assumes the risk of a less nutritious diet. That liberty interest requires a preliminary injunction to protect [his] ability to refuse the CCUSO's nutritional plan upon him.

Id. at 2–3 (citations omitted). The plaintiff thus seeks a preliminary injunction “that restricts the Defendants from placing any limitations on food beyond the standard CCUSO rules.” Doc. No. 20 at 2. In particular, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from “restricting [him] from buying food from outside vendors, and the CCUSO Commissary.” Doc. No. 20–1 at 1.

At the hearing, the plaintiff testified that his...