Crow v. Severs et al

Filing 117

ORDER - Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES plaintiff Keith Crow's objection 114 and ADOPTS the August 21, 2013 R&R 104 . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Crow's February 8, 2013 motion to appoint counsel and for a temporary restraining order 22 is DENIED. Crow's April 8, 2013 motion for a temporary restraining order 49 is DENIED. Crow's July 8, 2013 motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 88 is DENIED. Crow's motion to appoint counsel 111 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 09/20/13. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
KEITH CROW,

Case No. 12-CV-2216 (PJS/FLN)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

OFFICER KRIS SEVERS; SGT. GLEN
LISOWAV; SGT. BILL BRAUN; LT.
MCQUILLAN; DAVID REISHUS; KENT
GRANDLIENARD; TERRY CARLSON;
TOM ROY; SHEILA MONIO; and
DOCTOR CRAANE,
Defendants.

Keith Crow, pro se.
Jackson Evans and Scott A. Grosskreutz, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
OFFICE, for defendants Officer Kris Severs, Sgt. Glen Lisowav, Sgt. Bill Braun, Lt.
McQuillan, David Reishus, Kent Grandlienard, Terry Carlson, Tom Roy, and Sheila
Monio.
Andrea Pavelka Hoversten and John B. Casserly, GERAGHTY, O’LOUGHLIN &
KENNEY, P.A., for defendant Doctor Craane.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Keith Crow’s objection to the August 21,
2013 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel. Judge Noel
recommends denying each of Crow’s three pending motions for a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) and preliminary injunction. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the R&R.
Only two issues merit comment:
First, Crow alleges in his objection that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent
to his medical needs — specifically, to back injuries that he incurred during a fight in

February 2012. Obj. at 2-4 [ECF No. 114]. That issue, however, was not adequately raised by
Crow in his motions for preliminary relief. Despite Crow’s claims to the contrary, he did not
mention this issue in his February 8, 2013 motion for a TRO. ECF No. 22. Nor did he mention
this issue in his April 8, 2013 motion for a TRO. ECF No. 49. And although Crow did (briefly)
allude to this issue in his July 8, 2013 motion for a TRO, the relief that he seeks in that motion —
to be placed on “24 hour lockdown” until he can be transferred to a different prison — is entirely
unrelated to the harm he alleges to be suffering due to defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference
to his medical needs. ECF No. 88 at 13.
In any event, Crow has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his
deliberate-indifference claim. “A prima facie case alleging deliberate indifference requires the
inmate-plaintiff to demonstrate that she suffered from an objectively serious medical need and
the prison officials actually knew of but deliberately disregarded that need.” Popoalii v. Corr.
Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). Crow has not come close to
showing that he suffers from an objectively serious medical need; indeed, according to the
evidence submitted by Crow, a doctor examined his back approximately three months after the
February 2012 fight and found only mild abnormalities. See ECF No. 18-2 at 13. Moreover,
Crow has been examined at least twice by medical professionals on account of his complaints of
back pain, belying any argument that prison officials have deliberately ignored his medical needs.
See id.; ECF No. 30-2 at 19-20. Because Crow has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on
the merits of his deliberate-indifference claim, he is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief
on the basis of that claim. See Barrett v. Claycomb, 705 F.3d 315, 320 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating

-2-

that “likelihood of success on the merits” is the “most significant” factor in determining whether
to grant preliminary injunctive relief) (quotation omitted).
Second, Crow requests in his February 8, 2013 motion that the Court appoint counsel to
represent him in this case. That request is denied for the reasons stated in the Court’s previous
orders denying Crow’s motions to appoint counsel. See ECF Nos. 20, 71, 103. Likewise,
Crow’s most recent motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 111] is also denied for the
reasons stated in those previous orders. Crow is an extraordinarily litigious prisoner who has
demonstrated, in countless filings, that he is capable of representing himself vigorously and
competently. The Court will not appoint counsel to represent him in this case.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court
OVERRULES plaintiff Keith Crow’s objection [ECF No. 114] and ADOPTS the August 21,
2013 R&R [ECF No. 104]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Crow’s February 8, 2013 motion to appoint counsel and for a temporary
restraining order [ECF No. 22] is DENIED.

2.

Crow’s April 8, 2013 motion for a temporary restraining order [ECF No. 49] is
DENIED.

3.

Crow’s July 8, 2013 motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction [ECF No. 88] is DENIED.

4.

Crow’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 111] is DENIED.

Dated: September 20 , 2013

s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge

-3-