Munt v. Larson
| Decision Date | 23 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-cv-0582 (SRN/SER) |
| Parties | Joel Marvin Munt, Plaintiff, v. Nannette Larson, Kathy Reid, Shelly Monio, Kim Ebeling, Doctors #1-6, Health Services Workers #1-6, Opticians #1-4, and RN #1, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Joel Marvin Munt, pro se, 236179, MCF-Stillwater, 970 Pickett Street North, Bayport, Minnesota 55003.
Timothy S. Christensen, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General's Office, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 900, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, counsel for Defendants Larson, Reid, Monio, and Ebeling.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated July 30, 2015 [Doc. No. 74]. In the R & R, Magistrate Judge Rau recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff Joel Marvin Munt's Motion for Preliminary Relief [Doc. No. 6] and Second Motion for Preliminary Relief [Doc. No. 25]. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R & R ("Objections") [Doc. No. 76]. Defendants Larson, Reid, Shelly, Monio, and Ebeling filed a timely response to Plaintiff's Objections ( ) [Doc. No. 83].
The Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge'sopinion to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R . Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Based on that de novo review, the Court adopts in part the R & R and denies Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief.
The factual and procedural background of this preliminary injunction matter is well documented in the R & R and is incorporated herein by reference. (See R & R at 1-18.)
Plaintiff is an inmate currently incarcerated at Minnesota Correctional Facility ("MCF") -Stillwater. (R & R at 2.) However, for the vast majority of the time relevant to this matter, he was incarcerated at MCF-Oak Park Heights, where he arrived in April 2012. (See id. at 2, 17-18.) Defendants Nanette Larson ("Larson"), Kathy Reid ("Reid"), Shelly Monio ("Monio"), and Kim Ebeling ("Ebeling") (collectively, "Defendants") are all personnel with the Minnesota Department of Corrections ("DOC"). (Id. at 2.) Larson is the Director of Health Services for the DOC. (Id.) Reid is the Health Services Administrator at MCF-Oak Park Heights. (Id.) Ebeling is a Grievance Coordinator at the DOC's "Central Office" while Monio holds the same title at MCF-Oak Park Heights.1 (Id.)
Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the Defendantsand Unnamed Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. .) Plaintiff alleges that even before he was incarcerated, he found that glasses gave him "severe headaches" no matter what prescription he had and those headaches were made worse with movement. (Compl. at ¶ D.1.) As a result, Plaintiff wore contact lenses ("contacts") for many years to avoid these headaches. (Id. at ¶ D.2.) However, upon being transferred to MCF-Oak Park Heights, Plaintiff alleges his spare contacts were confiscated pursuant to a DOC policy. (Id. at ¶ D.3; Affidavit of David Paulson, MD, MBA, at ¶¶ 15, 18 ("Paulson Aff.") [Doc. No. 50].)
Plaintiff soon notified DOC personnel "of the problem he experienced when wearing glasses." (Compl. ¶ D.4.) An optometrist saw Plaintiff in April 2012 and he received new glasses the following day. (Paulson Aff. at ¶ 15.) Over the next several years, Plaintiff filed multiple complaints related to the headaches he was experiencing and the DOC made numerous attempts to address these concerns. (See R & R at 3-8.) Importantly, in August 2012, Plaintiff was seen by a doctor in relation to his "multiple-month history of headaches." (Medical File, Ex. 6, attached to the Paulson Aff. at 3 ("Ex. 6 to Paulson Aff.") [Doc. No. 50-2].)2 Plaintiff's headaches were diagnosed as being of a "potential migraine variant" and he was given a suppressive medication (Dilacor XR), told to use Tylenol as needed, and to inform the medical clinic if his headaches persisted.(Ex. 6 to Paulson Aff. at 3.)
Two months after this visit, Plaintiff again requested contacts, but was informed that while an eye doctor would review his request "contacts were not allowed." (Compl. at ¶ D.7.) In November 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from Larson. (Ex. 2 to Compl.)3 Larson acknowledged Plaintiff's request for contacts and allegation that his medical condition was being ignored by the refusal to provide him with contacts. (Id.) However, Larson noted, "after reviewing your medical records, your history of headaches and their connection with eyeglasses is far from established to a degree that would support advocacy of your position." (Id.) Plaintiff was told to work with Health Services to "objectively address" his headaches.4 (Id.)
Plaintiff again complained of headaches related to his glasses and requested contacts in April 2013. (Compl. at ¶ D.9; see Paulson Aff. at ¶ 16.) Ultimately, no reviewing medical personnel determined that Plaintiff "needed another examination" at that time. (Paulson Aff. at ¶ 16.) Plaintiff was also informed, by a nurse, of the risks ofcontacts in prison due to "chemical use" and the possibility of infection related to the confined living space. (Ex. 5 to Paulson Aff. at 3.)
In August 2013, Plaintiff was again seen by a physician in relation to his complaint of headaches, but made no mention of the fact that he believed his headaches were caused by glasses. (Ex. 6 to Paulson Aff. at 2, 4.) He was treated for "headaches, nonspecified" and "ethmoid sinusitis and maxillary sinusitis." (Id.) Plaintiff reported his headaches were "much improved" after this treatment. (Id. at 2.) Notably, for nearly a year after this treatment, Plaintiff made no complaints of headaches related to his glasses. (See Compl. at ¶ D.12; Ex. 3 to Compl.)
However, Plaintiff again began complaining of headaches associated with his use of glasses in August 2014. (See R & R at 5-8.) Plaintiff regularly attributed these headaches to his use of glasses instead of contacts. (See id. at 5-6.) Various medical personnel examined Plaintiff, but none found a medical connection between his headaches and eyewear, nor did they find contacts were medically necessary. (See id. at 5-8.) Plaintiff also made numerous complaints regarding the policy related to contacts and the fact that no alternative to contacts had been investigated. (See id. at 6-7.) In response, DOC personnel repeatedly informed Plaintiff he was not allowed contacts because DOC Policy 500.150 only provided for them when medically necessary (i.e., when a doctor prescribed contacts as medically necessary). (Id.) No objective medical evidence ties Plaintiff's glasses to his headaches, nor is there any indication Plaintiff has "an objective abnormality" causing the headaches. (Paulson Aff. at ¶¶ 25, 27.)
In December 2014, Plaintiff filed a formal grievance related to his headaches andlack of contacts. (Compl. at ¶ D.36; Ex. 15 to Compl.; R & R at 8.) Shortly thereafter, Monio returned the grievance stating it was not filed within the necessary timeframe and that some of Plaintiff's complaints were addressed. (Ex. 17 to Compl.) Plaintiff filed a grievance appeal challenging these determinations. (Ex. 18 to Compl.) Ebeling returned Plaintiff's appeal because he failed to attach the required documentation. (Ex. 19 to Compl.)
Based on the aforementioned facts, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Compl. at ¶¶ E.2, E.16, E.20, E.21.) Plaintiff emphasizes that the heart of his claims relate to Defendants' failure "to address a medical need rather than a particular solution [presumably, contacts] to it." (Compl. at p. 16.)5 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants improperly interfered with his attempts to utilize the grievance process, (id.), which he alleges violates his First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. (Compl. at ¶¶ E.2, E.16, E.20, E.21.) He seeks a variety of injunctive relief and damages. Important to the present matter, Plaintiff requests an order: (1) directing the DOC to address his medical issues, either by allowing him to wear contacts or providing him with an alternative to glasses which allows him to see without subjecting him to headaches; and, (2) preventing any retaliation against him. (R & R at 10; Compl. at ¶¶ F.22, F.24.) Notably, he requests no injunctive reliefspecifically related to the grievance processing system. (See Compl. at ¶¶ F.1-33.)
Plaintiff subsequently filed two motions for preliminary relief. In the first, he requested the following: (1) use of contacts for the duration of the lawsuit; (2) an order preventing the DOC from transferring him to another facility, or another unit within MCF-Oak Park Heights; (3) an order preventing any retaliatory acts, or acts meant to impede access to court (e.g., limiting his law library access or interfering with his legal materials); and (4) delivery and copies of pleadings free of charge. The parties' arguments related to this motion, and other parts of the procedural history surrounding it, are well documented in the R & R and not recited again here. (See R & R at 11-13.)
Plaintiff's second motion describes various restrictions he alleges are aimed at limiting his ability to pursue his claims and interfere with his access to the courts, in violation of his equal protection and other constitutional rights. (Second Motion for Preliminary Relief at 5 (" ") [Doc. No. 25].)6 The alleged restrictions include limiting his ability to obtain legal documents, limiting access to the law library and certain legal resources,...
To continue reading
Request your trial