Stockmeier v. Green

130 Nev., Advance Opinion ell
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ROBERT LESLIE STOCKMEIER, No. 62327
Appellant,
vs.
TRACEY D. GREEN, STATE HEALTH
FILED
OFFICER, DEC 31 2014
Respondent. TRACE .UNDEMAN
CLE
BY
DEPUTY CLERK
Proper person appeal from a district court order denying a
petition for a writ of mandamus and request for injunction. First Judicial
District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Robert Leslie Stockmeier, Lovelock,
in Proper Person.
Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, Carson City, and Linda C.
Anderson, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Carson City,
for Respondent.
BEFORE HARDESTY, DOUGLAS and CHERRY, JJ.
OPINION
By the Court, CHERRY, J.:
NRS 209.382(1)(b) requires respondent, Nevada's Chief
Medical Officer,' to periodically examine and semiannually report to the
'Since the filing of appellant's petition, the Legislature has replaced
the State Health Officer with a Chief Medical Officer. Compare 2001 Nev.
Stat., 17th Special Sess., ch. 14, § 14, at 194 (prior version of the statute
continued on next page...
SUPREME Couar
OF
NEVADA
(0)1947A .41140
14 -4Ro ?x
Board of State Prison Commissioners regarding "[Ole nutritional
adequacy of the diet of incarcerated offenders." At issue here is the
district court's denial of appellant's petition for mandamus and injunctive
relief, which sought to compel respondent to comply with the duties
imposed by this statute. Our review of this decision requires us to
determine whether respondent sufficiently complied with the dictates of
NRS 209.382(1)(b). And in this regard, we conclude that respondent's
examination of inmate diets and her resulting report to the Board fell well
short of what was required, as her report included no analysis of the diets
of general population inmates, addressed diets at only one of Nevada's
correctional facilities, and generally lacked any indication as to how the
required examination was conducted. We therefore reverse the denial of
appellant's petition and remand this matter to the district court with
instructions to issue a writ of mandamus compelling respondent to
exercise her statutory duties in accordance with this opinion
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case began when appellant Robert Leslie Stockmeier, an
inmate at Lovelock Correctional Center, filed the underlying district court
petition seeking mandamus and injunctive relief to compel respondent
Tracey Green, in her capacity as the Chief Medical Officer for the State of
Nevada, to comply with NRS 209.382(1)(b) by examining the nutritional
adequacy of inmate diets and making the required semiannual reports to
the Board regarding her findings. Stockmeier alleged that Green failed to
...continued
referring to the State Health Officer), with NRS 209.382. This opinion will
therefore refer to this position as the Chief Medical Officer in accordance
with the current version of that statute.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A se.
comply with her statutory duties as to either of these requirements. In
particular, he maintained that she had never examined the ingredients or
nutritional properties of inmate diets and instead relied on the report of a
dietician who merely reviewed a printed menu detailing what was being
offered to inmates. Stockmeier further asserted that Green had failed to
report to the Board regarding a finding from a Nevada Department of
Corrections dietician that indicated that the diets served to inmates were
high in sodium, cholesterol, and protein, which could lead to obesity, heart
disease, and diabetes.
After the petition was filed, Stockmeier moved for summary
judgment and Green submitted a response, addressing both the petition
and the summary judgment motion, which asserted that she had regularly
inspected inmate diets and had recently provided a written report of her
findings to the Board. To support this contention, Green attached a cover
letter addressed to the Acting Director of the Department of Corrections,
which had purportedly been accompanied by her report to the Board.
Although the letter indicated that Green had "no recommendations" for
improving the inmate diets, a copy of the report was not provided to the
district court. Nonetheless, the district court denied the petition, and
Stockmeier, proceeding pro se, appealed that decision to this court.
On appeal, this court reversed the district court's denial of
Stockmeier's petition. See Stockmeier v. Green, Docket No. 58067 (Order
of Reversal and Remand, March 13, 2012). In so doing, this court noted
that Green had failed to provide the district court with copies of any
reports and that she had not submitted any other evidence to refute
Stockmeier's assertion that she had failed to exercise the duties imposed
by NRS 209.382(1)(b). As a result, this court concluded that the district
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
court had abused its discretion in denying the petition and remanded the
matter with instructions to "require [Green] to submit evidence, such as
the reports that were purportedly attached to the [cover] letter" so as to
allow the district court to address the merits of Stockmeier's petition.
Stockmeier, Docket No. 58067 (Order of Reversal and Remand, March 13,
2012).
On remand, Green submitted the entire report that she had
presented to the Board in 2011 and provided minutes from a December 5,
2011, Board meeting at which she had appeared and informed the Board
that she had found no nutritional deficiencies in her inspection of inmate
diets. The report that Green provided, however, focused mainly on issues
regarding medical care and sanitation in Nevada's prisons, rather than
the diets served to the inmate population. To the extent that inmate diets
were discussed, the report indicated that a dietician had reviewed the
regular and medical diets provided for inmate consumption at one facility
every six months and that the hospital at that facility had met the
nutritional needs of prisoner-patients. 2
Following Green's submission of these materials, Stockmeier
submitted a response arguing that the report demonstrated Green's
failure to comply with NRS 209.382(1)(b) because it contained no
discussion of the diets served to general population inmates and only a
limited discussion of medical diets for a small number of inmates. In
reply, Green asserted that her office maintains only records of deficiencies
It appears from the report and Green's response to Stockmeier's
2
civil pro se appeal statement that the dietician had conducted this review
at the behest of the correctional facility, rather than as part of Green's
inspection of inmate diets.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A sap()
discovered in inmate diets rather than areas of compliance. She also
provided a declaration stating that her employees "regularly inspected the
correctional facilities and periodically examined 'the nutritional adequacy
of the diet of incarcerated offenders" in accordance with NRS
209.382(1)(b)'s requirements. Green's declaration did not offer any details
regarding how or when the inspections were conducted, although it did
state that no cases of malnutrition or vitamin deficiencies had been
discovered.
After considering the parties' submissions, the district court
denied Stockmeier's petition, concluding that Green had complied with the
requirements of NRS 209.382(1)(b) by preparing and presenting the 2011
report to the Board. The district court further agreed with Green's
contention that assessing nutritional adequacy merely required her to
ensure that inmates were not being malnourished. Despite its conclusion
that Green had adequately performed her statutory duties, the district
court nonetheless noted Green's failure to carry out her inspection and
reporting duties "on a uniform and consistent basis" and cautioned her to
continue to comply with NRS 209.382(1)(b) "in a uniform and documented
manner." Again representing himself, Stockmeier appealed that
determination to this court.
DISCUSSION
NRS 209.381(1) requires that each offender incarcerated at an
institution or facility operated by the Nevada Department of Corrections
be provided a "healthful diet." To that end, NRS 209.382(1)(b) provides
that "Whe Chief Medical Officer shall periodically examine and shall
report to the Board" on a semiannual basis regarding "[t]he nutritional
adequacy of the diet of incarcerated offenders taking into account the
religious or medical dietary needs of an offender and the adjustment of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A
dietary allowances for age, sex and level of activity." After the required
examination is conducted and the report of that examination is presented
to the Board, if the Chief Medical Officer's report reveals any deficiencies
in the nutritional adequacy of the diet offered to incarcerated offenders,
NRS 209.382(2) provides that "[t]he Board shall take appropriate action to
remedy any [reported] deficiencies."
In this appeal, Stockmeier maintains that Green failed to
comply with the duties imposed by NRS 209.382(1)(b) and that the district
court should have granted his petition and compelled her to do so. Green
disagrees. We review a district court's denial of a petition for a writ of
mandamus for an abuse of discretion, and we review questions of statutory
interpretation de novo. Reno Newspapers, Inc. v. Haley, 126 Nev. 211,
214, 234 P.3d 922, 924 (2010).
Green failed to comply with the broad examination and reporting
requirements set forth in NRS 209.382(1)(b)
While the Chief Medical Officer's examination of inmate diets
must account for religious and medical dietary needs and the age, sex, and
activity level of the inmates, NRS 209.382(1)(b) establishes no other
requirements for what must be addressed or considered by the Chief
Medical Officer or what information must be included in the report
presented to the Board. In this regard, it seems that the Legislature has
chosen to provide the Chief Medical Officer with considerable discretion in
fulfilling her duties under NRS 209.382(1)(b), and we will not infringe on
the role of the Legislature by reading into the statute specific steps that
the Chief Medical Officer must take in carrying out these statutory duties.
See N. Lake Tahoe Fire Prot. Dist. v. Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs,
129 Nev. „ 310 P.3d 583, 588 (2013) (noting that it is the
Legislature that makes policy and value choices by enacting laws and that
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
6
(0) 1947A
this court's role is to construe and apply those laws) Instead, we limit our
consideration to assessing Green's efforts in examining and reporting to
the Board regarding the nutritional adequacy of inmate diets.
The report to the Board was inadequate
Our review of the record demonstrates Green's failure to
sufficiently examine and report upon the nutritional adequacy of inmate
diets. While Green relies on the single 2011 report to support her
assertion that she complied with NRS 209.382(1)(b)'s requirements, that
report serves only to undermine this position. Green's report primarily
focuses on issues other than inmate diets, and the limited materials
included in the report regarding this subject provide no information on, or
analysis of, the nutritional adequacy of the general population diets.
Indeed, there is nothing in the report to even indicate that Green or her
staff actually examined the diets served to the general inmate population.
The report's only reference to general population diets is a notation
regarding the Lovelock Correctional Center indicating that a dietician
"had never been to the [Lovelock] correctional center and [had] only
reviewed menus for nutritional adequacy." And as previously noted, the
report seems to suggest that this menu-based review was carried out at
the direction of the correctional center, rather than as part of Green's
examination of inmate diets.
Although the report does not include a copy of these or any
other menus, Stockmeier provided the district court with a February 2010
menu from Lovelock Correctional Center. This menu contains no
information regarding the nutritional value of the menu items being
offered, and in some instances, it does not even describe the type of food
being served. For example, every lunch entry on the menu simply
describes the lunch offering as "Sacks," while certain dinner offerings are
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
K)) 1947P. e
identified as "Chefs Choice." Thus, even if this menu-based review had
formed a part of Green's examination of inmate diets, such menus could
not possibly provide a basis for sufficiently examining their nutritional
adequacy.
And while Green's report also contains some notations
regarding the diets provided to Lovelock inmates receiving medical
treatment, this information is limited to a yes or no check sheet on which
an individual carrying out an inspection of the facility marked "yes" for
items such as "Mlle menu for a patient must meet the nutritional needs of
the patient" and "[a] hospital shall provide each patient with a nourishing,
palatable balanced diet that meets the daily nutritional and dietary needs
of the patient." This section of the report, however, provides no indication
as to what Green or her staff reviewed in making these findings and
contains no information regarding what these inmates were being served
or how these meals satisfied the aforementioned requirements.
Altogether, the minimal discussion of the general population
and medical diets detailed above, which comprises the totality of the
information regarding inmate diets provided in the report, demonstrates
Green's failure to faithfully execute the duties imposed upon her by NRS
209.382(1)(b). By its plain language, this statute requires Green, as the
Chief Medical Officer, to "periodically examine" and provide semiannual
reports to the Board regarding the nutritional adequacy of inmate diets.
NRS 209.382(1)(b); see also Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. ,
, 252 P.3d 206, 209 (2011) (stating that, when interpreting a statute,
this court first looks to the statute's plain language). But Green's report
does not detail what foods are being served to inmates at Nevada's various
correctional facilities, much less provide any explanation of how these
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
8
(0) 1947A 9 ■41'2;19>
unidentified foods provide inmates with a nutritionally adequate diet.
Further, the limited diet-related information included in the report
addresses only the Lovelock Correctional Center, and thus, no information
at all is provided regarding inmate diets at any of Nevada's other
correctional facilities. And finally, the report fails to offer any explanation
of how the examinations were conducted, what standards were used to
determine the adequacy of the inmate diets and identify any deficiencies
in those diets, or how issues related to inmates' religious and medical
dietary needs and their age, sex, and activity levels were accounted for.
Even if, as Green asserts on appeal, her office only documents deficiencies
discovered in inmate diets, the only information this report could be
construed as providing, given the absence of any noted dietary deficiencies
in the report, is that the inmates were not malnourished. In this regard,
Green maintains that documenting the fact that inmates are not
malnourished is enough to comply with NRS 209.382(1)(b). We address
this contention next.
Assessing nutritional adequacy requires more than merely ensuring
inmates are not malnourished
Stockmeier argues that Green improperly interprets the
requirement that she examine the nutritional adequacy of inmate diets as
requiring her only to determine whether these diets will cause the inmate
population to become malnourished. Green, however, asserts that she is
not required to ensure that inmates receive an optimal diet, but rather,
need only determine that the diets served do not result in malnutrition or
vitamin deficiencies. The district court accepted Green's position on this
issue. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree with this conclusion.
While NRS 209.382 does not set forth the specific process
required for evaluating the nutritional adequacy of inmate diets, and we
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
9
(0) 1947A 0
in no way imply that inmate diets must be a perfect example of nutritional
balance, the language of NRS 209.382(1)(b) demonstrates that merely
ensuring that inmate diets do not cause malnutrition or vitamin
deficiencies is not sufficient. This statute requires the Chief Medical
Officer to "examine" the "nutritional adequacy" of the inmate diets in light
of any "religious or medical dietary needs" and the "age, sex and activity
level" of the inmates. NRS 209.382(1)(b). Although, as noted above, we
decline to set forth additional parameters to guide the Chief Medical
Officer in assessing the nutritional adequacy of inmate diets, the
Legislature's inclusion of these specific requirements in the otherwise
broad language of NRS 209.382(1)(b) convinces us that Green must do
something more than merely look for signs of malnutrition or vitamin
deficiency in the inmates in order to comply with the requirements
imposed by that statute. 3 And contrary to Green's assertion on appeal,
NRS 209.381(1)'s requirement that inmates be fed "a healthful diet"
further supports our conclusion that Green's efforts must go beyond
merely ensuring that inmates are not malnourished. See Allstate Ins. Co.
v. Fackett, 125 Nev. 132, 138, 206 P.3d 572, 576 (2009) (holding that
statutes should be interpreted in harmony with their statutory scheme).
Moreover, as NRS 209.382(2) makes clear, the Chief Medical Officer's
3 To the extent that Stockmeier asserts that Green was required to
submit a report from a Department of Corrections dietician stating that
inmate diets were high in sodium, cholesterol, and protein, which could
lead to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, to the Board, we reject that
assertion, as NRS 209.382(1)(b) does not impose specific requirements on
how Green is to report to the Board. Nevertheless, the findings in the
dietician's report were relevant evidence demonstrating that Green was
not fully complying with the requirement that she examine inmate diets
for nutritional adequacy and report her findings to the Board.
SUPREME COURT
OP
NEVADA
10
(0) 1947A e
examination and report must, at a minimum, provide sufficient
information regarding the nutritional adequacy of inmate diets to allow
the Board to take "appropriate action to remedy any deficiencies reported."
In sum, the 2011 report and Green's own arguments
demonstrate the inadequacy of her efforts to comply with NRS
209.382(1)(b). And while Green submitted a declaration asserting that
she and her staff had "regularly inspected the correctional facilities and
periodically examined the nutritional adequacy" of inmate diets in
accordance with NRS 209.382(1)(b), there is nothing in her declaration,
the report, or any other portion of the record to support this statement.
Thus, in the absence of any implication in Green's report to the Board to
demonstrate that she or her staff actually examined inmate diets, we
cannot conclude that she satisfied the minimal requirements of NRS
209.382(1)(b) that she examine and report to the Board regarding the
nutritional adequacy of inmate diets.
Writ relief was warranted
Stockmeier's final appellate assertion is that Green has failed
to appear and report to the Board every six months as NRS 209.382(1)(b)
requires. In responding to this argument, Green does not dispute that she
must report to the Board twice a year and expresses her intent to comply
with this requirement. In essence then, Green concedes that she has not
complied with the statute's semiannual reporting requirement by
providing the mandated two reports per year, a position that is supported
both by the record and the district court's order, which noted Green's
noncompliance with the reporting requirement, even while denying
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
11
(0) 1947A csto
Stockmeier's petition. 4 Under these circumstances, we must conclude that
Green has not complied with the semiannual reporting duties imposed by
NRS 209.382(1)(b). Nonetheless, in the absence of any evidence regarding
the frequency or scheduling of the Board's meetings, we decline
Stockmeier's request to declare that the semiannual reporting
requirement necessitates that Green provide reports to the Board at strict
six-month intervals.
As detailed above, the record on appeal clearly demonstrates
that Green has failed to fulfill the duties imposed on her by NRS
209.382(1)(b). We therefore conclude that Stockmeier has demonstrated
that a writ of mandamus was warranted to compel Green to carry out the
duties articulated by that statute, NRS 34.160 (providing that mandamus
relief is appropriate "to compel the performance of an act which the law
especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station");
Mineral Cnty. v. State, Dep't of Conservation & Natural Res., 117 Nev.
235, 242-43, 20 P.3d 800, 805 (2001) (holding that, in order for mandamus
relief to be appropriate, "the action being compelled must be one already
required by law"), and that the district court abused its discretion in
denying Stockmeier's petition for a writ of mandamus. 5 See Reno
4Among other things, the district court pointed out that the
Governor had actually admonished Green for failing to provide the
required reports on a semiannual basis.
5 1n light of the deficiencies identified in Green's report and her
failure to comply with the semiannual reporting requirement, the district
court's conclusion that Green's mere submission of the 2011 report
rendered Stockmeier's petition moot was improper. As a result, we reject
Green's assertion that this appeal should likewise be dismissed on
mootness grounds.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
12
(0) 1947A X
Newspapers, 126 Nev. at Z14, 234 P.3d at 924 (providing that this court
reviews the district court's denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus for
an abuse of discretion).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the district court's
denial of Stockmeier's petition and remand this matter to the district
court. On remand, the district court shall issue a writ of mandamus
ordering Green to comply with the requirements of NRS 209.382(1)(b) in
line with this opinion.6
Cherry
We concur:
Ha f.riesty
GBecause we direct the district court to grant Stockmeier's petition
for a writ of mandamus, we do not address the denial of his request for
injunctive relief.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
13
(0) I947A