United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Courtney Bernard Clark, Pro Se, Inmate Number
177753, MCF-Moose Lake
Timothy S. Christensen, Minnesota Attorney General's
Office, for Defendants Tom Roy, Nannette Larson, Kathy Reid,
David Reishus, and Katherine Powers
Charles A. Gross, Geraghty, O'Loughlin & Kenney, PA,
Alliance Bank Center, Suite 1100, for Defendant Dr. Schmult
properly known as Dr. Derek J. Schmidt
Anthony J. Novak and Mark A. Solheim, Larson King, LLP, 30
East Seventh Street, Suite 2800, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101,
for Defendants Centurion of Minnesota and Dr. Stephen Craane
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SUSAN
RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This
matter is before the Court on the Objection of Plaintiff
Courtney Bernard Clark (“Clark”) [Doc. No. 284]
to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer dated November 28, 2016 [Doc.
No. 270]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Bowbeer denied two
of Clark's motions regarding his personal property: (1)
“Motion for Compensation Relief or Reimbursement of
Property, Commissary Taken. Also School Time and Pay
Compensations” [Doc. No. 147]; and (2) “Motion
for a[n] Order That Defendants Reimburse Plaintiff Clark for
All Property, Canteen, Pictures, that Was Destroyed, Not
Allowed, or Missing under the D.O.C. Control, MN and North
Dakota” [Doc. No. 171].
Also
before the Court is Clark's Objection [Doc. No. 285] to
the November 30, 2016 Order (“the Order”) of
Magistrate Judge Bowbeer [Doc. No. 272]. In the Order, the
magistrate judge denied Clark's “Motion for
Modification to Release Order and Objection to Release All of
the Plaintiff Clark Medical Files” [Doc. No. 261].
For the
reasons set forth below, this Court affirms the Order and
adopts the R&R. The Court sustains Clark's Objection
to the R&R regarding his photographs, as additional
information presented in Clark's Objection was not
presented to the magistrate judge, but overrules his R&R
Objection in all other respects. The Court also overrules
Clark's Objection to the Order.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
background of this matter is well documented in the R&R
and is incorporated herein by reference.[1] (See
R&R at 2-4.) In brief, Plaintiff is an inmate who, during
the relevant periods, was incarcerated at the Minnesota
Correctional Facility (“MCF”) in Oak Park Heights
from July 11, 2014 to October 13, 2015; the North Dakota
State Penitentiary at Bismark from October 13, 2015 to July
19, 2016; the MCF in Rush City from July 19, 2016 to July 21,
2016; and the MCF in Moose Lake from July 21, 2016 to the
present. (See Wherley Aff. Ex. 1 at 2-3 [Doc. No.
185].)
Plaintiff
filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that Defendants violated his civil rights by providing
inadequate medical treatment and made decisions regarding his
treatment and housing in retaliation for his complaints.
Specifically, Clark alleges that his transfer to North Dakota
was in retaliation for complaints that he made on his own
behalf and on behalf of other prisoners concerning medical
care and conditions in the Minnesota prisons. (See
Am. Definite Stmt. to Compl. at 5 [Doc. No 77].) Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants are all associated with
Minnesota's state correctional system, although not all
of them are direct employees of the Department of Corrections
(“DOC”).[2] (See id. at 3-4.)
A.
Motions Regarding Clark's Personal Property
The
magistrate judge construed Clark's motions concerning his
personal property as motions requesting injunctive relief.
(R&R at 1.) In his motions, Clark alleges that certain
items of personal property, including “unallowable
property/canteen [items], ” personal pictures, and long
johns were taken from him upon his arrival at the North
Dakota State Penitentiary in October 2015. (Id. at
3) (citing Pls.'s motions). He also alleges that
“unallowable properties and canteen [items]” and
“legal papers” were seized when he was
transferred from North Dakota back to Minnesota.
(Id.) In other motions filed in this case, Clark
argues that the DOC Defendants failed to warn him that some
of his personal effects would not be permitted at the North
Dakota facility. (Id. at 5.) He seeks the return of
his lost property or reimbursement for the missing items.
(Id.)
As to
property alleged to have been taken by North Dakota prison
officials, the magistrate judge observed that the proper
parties were not before the Court. (Id. at 6-7.) In
addition, Magistrate Judge Bowbeer noted that nothing in the
record demonstrated whether Clark had exhausted his
administrative remedies in North Dakota. (Id. at 7,
n.3.) Regarding the property allegedly seized upon
Clark's return to Minnesota, the magistrate judge
determined that Clark failed to meet the standard necessary
for injunctive relief. (Id. at 8.) Specifically, as
to the canteen items, Magistrate Judge Bowbeer found that the
value of the medical and food items taken was quantifiable
and that even if Plaintiff's financial circumstances made
the replacement of these items difficult or impossible,
nothing in the record supported a conclusion that immediate
replacement was necessary for Plaintiff's health or
security. (Id.) Regarding the personal photographs,
the magistrate judge found that Clark failed to identify or
provide any information to support an argument of irreparable
harm resulting from the loss of this property. (Id.
at 8.) Lastly, as to Clark's “legal papers, ”
the magistrate judge observed that in response to previous
motions on this very subject, the DOC Defendants had
represented that the documents were made available to Clark
when he was in the custody of North Dakota officials and upon
his return to Minnesota. (Id.) Magistrate Judge
Bowbeer noted that the Court had previously ordered the DOC
Defendants to make Plaintiff's legal papers available ...