Opinion
Case No. 2:19-cv-3313-RMG-MGB
06-01-2020
Willie Joe Sturkey, Plaintiff, v. R.N. Pitman, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Willie Joe Sturkey, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs for a particular diet, leading to him suffering a heart attack. Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at Greenville County Detention Center ("GCDC") and the events complained of occurred at GCDC. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. No. 48) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., all pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge.
BACKGROUND
In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks that this Court to issue a preliminary injunction "to force Defendants with providing a special diet and exercise to prevent further harm to the Plaintiff." (Dkt. No. 48 at 1.) More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on October 20, 2019, his "cardiologist prescribed a special non sodium diet 'kosher' as part of the Plaintiff's medical treatment and to prevent the sodium, fatty tissue and cholesterol that was causing plaque to build up in [Plaintiff's] arteritis and high blood pressure." (Id.) In his attached affidavit, Plaintiff avers that Defendants "informed me that regardless of what my doctor said, I could not have [the kosher diet] because it was a religious diet." (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff avers that Defendants' refusal to provide a "non sodium diet . . . caused another heart attack resulting [in] 4 stints implant and near death." (Id.)
Defendants filed a response brief on May 15, 2020. (Dkt. No. 60). In their response brief, Defendants assert that "Plaintiff was on the Heart Healthy diet, which is a low fat, low sodium diet designed for inmates with heart disease or conditions like the Plaintiff has. GCDC offers religious diets, but no specific 'kosher diet.'" (Dkt. No. 60 at 2.) Defendants assert that Plaintiff "now receives, at his request, a regular diet tray that is not a reduced sodium diet." (Id.) According to Defendants, "Plaintiff can request a Heart Healthy diet at any time" and therefore he is not likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. (Id. at 3.) Defendants further state that during the time period relevant to this case, Plaintiff has purchased "products known to be high in sodium, including sodas, a pickle, candy and pork rinds." (Id.) Defendants explain that "[a] kosher diet would not include pork." (Id.) Plaintiff filed a reply brief on May 29, 2020. (Dkt. No. 71.) The motion has been fully briefed, and it is ripe for disposition.
STANDARDS
A. Liberal Construction
Pro se pleadings are given liberal construction and are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, "[t]he 'special judicial solicitude' with which a district court should view ... pro se filings does not transform the court into an advocate. United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 2401 (2013). Only those questions which are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed." Weller v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., City of Baltimore., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990). Giving "liberal construction" does not mean that the Court can ignore a prisoner's clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. "Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints . . . [do] not require . . . courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them." Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
B. Preliminary Injunction
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must make a "clear showing" that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21 (2008); see also, Smith v Ozmint, 444 F. Supp. 2d 502, 504 (D.S.C. 2006). All four requirements must be satisfied in order for relief to be granted. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010). A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy involving the exercise of a very far-reaching power, which is to be applied only in the limited circumstances which clearly demand it." Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 811 (4th Cir. 1991) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff must "clearly" demonstrate that he is "likely" to succeed on the merits. Real Truth About Obama, 575 F.3d at 346-47; Carcaño v. McCrory, 203 F.Supp.3d 615 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2016). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Irreparable injury must be both imminent and likely; speculation about potential future injuries is insufficient. Id. at 22. Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that each factor supports his request for preliminary injunction. Direx Israel, Ltd., 952 F.2d at 812.
DISCUSSION
Upon review, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to make the required showing under Winter. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim for injunctive relief.
The standard for reviewing medical claims of pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment is essentially the same as that for a convicted prisoner under the Eighth Amendment-deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992); Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 871 (4th Cir. 1988) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). "The Fourteenth Amendment right of pretrial detainees, like the Eighth Amendment right of convicted prisoners, requires that government officials not be deliberately indifferent to any serious medical needs of the detainee." Belcher v. Oliver, 898 F.2d 32, 34 (4th Cir. 1990) (citing Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 871 (4th Cir. 1988)). As noted by the Fourth Circuit, "courts have found that inmates who are denied special diets suffer no constitutional harm so long as they are instead given instruction on how to eat the available meals in a way that satisfies their medical needs." Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 234 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing, e.g., Baird v. Alameida, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1140-41 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (finding that a prisoner who received the "Heart Healthy" diet provided to all inmates in the state prison system and failed to present evidence that he could not eat certain menu items or that the "overall percentage" of such items in each meal was significant could not survive summary judgment on his deliberate indifference claim). Here, Defendants have provided compelling evidence that a kosher diet is not available at GCDC and that Plaintiff has access to a Heart Healthy diet, which satisfies his medical needs. It appears Plaintiff has chosen not to eat the Heart Healthy diet. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim for injunctive relief.
Further, Plaintiff's allegations concerning his lack of kosher diet do not suggest that Plaintiff is likely to suffer any "irreparable or imminent injury" given the availability of the Heart Healthy diet. Next, Plaintiff does not explain how the balance of equities tips in his favor. Lastly, Plaintiff offers no compelling argument that an injunction would be in the public interest.
Thus, to the extent Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction based on his alleged denial of a kosher diet, his request should be denied.
While Plaintiff also asks that Defendants provide him exercise, his motion focuses on the alleged lack of a kosher diet. He offers no argument or evidence as to how he has been deprived of exercise. His reply brief does not mention exercise. The undersigned therefore also recommends denying Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction based on an alleged denial of exercise.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 48) be DENIED.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. June 1, 2020
Charleston, South Carolina
/s/_________
MARY GORDON BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).