130 Nev., Advance Opinion ell 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ROBERT LESLIE STOCKMEIER, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

TRACEY D. GREEN, STATE HEALTH 

OFFICER, 

Respondent. 

No. 62327 

FILED 

DEC 31 2014 

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 

14 -4Ro ?x 

(0)1947A .41140 
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 

2It appears from the report and Green's response to Stockmeier's 

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. 3And 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 

3To 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. 4Under 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) 1947AX 
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 13 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A