Fields v. Henry et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying in part and denying in part without prejudice 76 plaintiff's Motion for miscellaneous relief. Plaintiff's request for a hearing is denied. Plaintiff's request for information to be sealed is denied without prejudice. On or before 12/10/2018 the DOC Defendants are required to file a written response regarding a discovery issue raised in plaintiff's motion. The Court finds that any request for injunctive relief is not properly before the Court at this time and will issue no ruling on plaintiff's passing request for injunctive relief.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 11/27/2018. (BJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
VICTOR DONNELL FIELDS,

Case No. 17-cv-2662-WMW-KMM

Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN HUOT, Director Behavioral
Health Services; NANETTE LARSON,
Health Services Director; DIANE
MEDCHILL, Program
Administrator/Associated Director of
Behavioral Health Services;
MICHELLE SAARI, WOOC-Psychology
Services Director; SHARLENE LOPEZ,
Program Director; KRISTIN MUHL, In
Patient Unit Director; BRONSON
AUSTRENG, Correctional Officer/Case
Manager; LON AUGDAHL, Psychiatric
Physician; JEFF TITUS, Warden;
GREGG SMITH, Associate Warden
Operations; JOHN DOES;

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
(ECF No. 76)

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court to address a recent motion filed by the
Plaintiff, Victor Donnell Fields. Mr. Fields, an inmate at the Minnesota
Correctional Facility in Rush City, MN (“MCF-Rush City”), brings this action
against several defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the
defendants have violated his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment because they are deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs
and have discriminated against him on the basis of his race. (Am. Compl., ECF
No. 44.) On November 11, 2018, Mr. Fields filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion”

raising several requests concerning the handling of his medical and mental-health
information, among other issues. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 76.) Having reviewed the
record, Mr. Fields’s motion is DENIED IN PART and DENIED IN PART WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
First, Mr. Fields asks the Court to set a hearing for December 3, 2018, at
9:00 a.m., “regarding the non releasing of my highly sensitive medical, mental
health records, confidential files, and from discussing to public! After I now had the
chance to just review those defendants strategically picked out to provide to me I
request they be sealed.” (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 76 at 1.) Mr. Fields’s request for a
hearing on this motion is denied. The Court can address each of the requests in the
motion based on the written submissions alone. His request for an order requiring
that certain matters be filed under seal is denied without prejudice. The motion
does not ask the Court to rule on any specific document. However, the Court notes
that Mr. Fields may have a significant interest in preventing public access to
medical and mental health records that may be filed at some point in this case. In
their response, the defendants acknowledge the interests at stake and assert that
they will take appropriate steps to ensure that if they indeed file any sensitive
information concerning Mr. Fields, they will take steps to ensure it is protected.
(Defs.’ Resp. at 2, ECF No. 78 (“DOC Defendants agree Plaintiff’s medical and
behavioral health records are confidential and, if submitted as evidence, intend on
filing any such documents under seal.”).) The Court can address the proper
handling of any specific information at another time.
Second, Mr. Fields asserts that “not one defendant as I requested provided
to me their discipline history, complaints filed against them....” (Id. at 1.)
Mr. Fields is requesting an order compelling the defendants to provide records
demonstrating their disciplinary history, the Court requires the defendants to file a
supplementary response. Mr. Fields clarified in a November 15, 2018 letter that
earlier submissions in this case constituted his attempt to meet and confer with
defense counsel regarding certain discovery issues. (See ECF No. 77.) In an
2

October 31, 2018 letter to Steven Forrest, Assistant Attorney General and counsel
for several of the prison officials who are defendants in this case (“the DOC
Defendants”), Mr. Fields asked counsel to provide information, including:
“educational backgrounds, job history and experiences, position and job
description, disciplinary actions taken against all defendants or complaints,
training experience, etc.” (ECF No. 73 at 5.) In the DOC Defendants’ November
21, 2018 response, they acknowledge that Mr. Fields alleges that they failed to
comply with discovery requests, though they argue that his allegations are
conclusory. (Defs.’ Resp. at 3–4.)
The Court declines to require Mr. Fields to “re-plead” this request as the
DOC Defendants suggest. (See id. at 4.) Instead, on or before December 10, 2018,
the DOC Defendants shall file a supplemental response to Mr. Fields’s motion
addressing: (1) the basis of the DOC-Defendants’ objections to Mr. Fields’s
request for information concerning the DOC-Defendants’ disciplinary history and
complaints made against them; and (2) a reasoned argument concerning the
discoverability (including relevance and proportionality pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1))
of such information given the claims and defenses in this proceeding.
Third, Mr. Fields asserts that the defendants improperly sent copies of his
records to an individual named Dan Ganin, an employee of the Minnesota
Department of Corrections (“MN-DOC”). (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) Mr. Fields does not ask
for any specific relief concerning this allegedly improper disclosure, and he has
not shown that he is entitled to any. In response to the motion, the defendants
represent that Mr. Ganin is an in-house counsel with the MN-DOC. (Defs.’ Resp.
at 2.) There is nothing improper about MN-DOC’s own attorneys having access to
information related this litigation, including Mr. Fields’s medical records.
Fourth, Mr. Fields asks the Court to “Order defendants immediately to
release” him from the segregated housing unit and to have the defendant “pay off
all [his] restitution ... & court fees.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) Mr. Fields complains that the
3

defendants have produced records containing “false content/narratives by the
defendants and their subordinates, officials, staff, etc….” (Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) He
asserts that they have used these false disciplinary reports to place him in
segregated confinement at MCF-Rush City. (See id. at 2 (asserting that the
defendant have Mr. Fields “indefinite[ly] segregated with false reports....”).)
Mr. Fields complains that this has prevented him from obtaining treatment from a
female psychologist/therapist, denied him access to his property, and interfered
with his ability to pay restitution. (See id. (“I don’t even have a woman
psychologist/therapist or psychiatrist like others, but defendants want to falsify
my records and reports but I don’t receive no treatment or care?”; “The
defendants and their subordinates still have me in segregation retaliation and
thrown away all my property, shoes, canteen....”; “Defendants denying me to pay
off over $4,000 in restitution by having me indefinite segregated with false
reports....”).)
The Court finds that any request for injunctive relief is not properly before
the Court at this time. Mr. Fields presented very little in the way of argument that
would support the request. Indeed, he has failed to address any of the four factors
a court must consider, and his motion is unsupported by any evidentiary
submissions. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.
1981) (explaining that courts determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction
must consider: (1) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; (2)
the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the balance between the harm to
the movant and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other
interested parties; and (4) whether the issuance of the preliminary injunction is in
the public interest). Accordingly, the Court will issue no ruling on his passing
request for injunctive relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

s/Katherine Menendez

Date: November 27, 2018

Katherine Menendez
United States Magistrate Judge

5