UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles Jay Wolff

v. Civil No. 06-cv-321-PB

New Hampshire Department of

Corrections, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Charles Wolff’s motion for emergency

injunctive relief (document no. 38). A hearing on the motion was

held before me on August 1, 2007. On August 2, 2007, prior to

making any ruling regarding injunctive relief, I directed the

defendants to provide the Court with notification of: (1) what

actions the prison would take to evaluate Wolff’s medical

condition and claims that he cannot tolerate the food provided to

him, and (2) the remedy the prison would employ to provide Wolff

with a diet that is religiously and medically appropriate, if it

was determined that he could not tolerate the meals being

provided to him (document no. 49). The defendants promptly

responded to my Order (document no. 50). Plaintiff has requested

that the hearing on his motion for injunctive relief be

reconvened so that he might introduce evidence in response to the

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 18
2

defendants’ written response to that Order (document no. 52). 

Wolff has also filed several motions seeking to have the Court

hold the prison kitchen supervisor in contempt (document nos. 53-

55, 58, 60 & 62). The defendants object to the plaintiff’s

motions (document no. 59). I address herein the motion for

preliminary injunctive relief and the subsequently filed

pleadings pending before the Court.

Standard of Review

Preliminary injunctive relief is available to protect the

moving party from irreparable harm, so that he may obtain a

meaningful resolution of the dispute after full adjudication of

the underlying action. See Jean v. Mass. State Police, No. 06-

1775, 2007 WL 1793126, *2 (1st Cir. 2007). Such a situation

arises when some harm from the challenged conduct could not be

adequately redressed with traditional legal or equitable remedies

following a trial. See Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat,

Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 1996) (finding irreparable harm

where legal remedies are inadequate); see also Acierno v. New

Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994) (explaining

irreparable harm and its effect on the contours of preliminary 

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 18
3

injunctive relief). Absent irreparable harm, there is no need

for a preliminary injunction.

The need to prevent irreparable harm, however, exists only

to enable the court to render a meaningful disposition on the

underlying dispute. See CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast

Props., 48 F.3d 618, 620-21 (1st Cir. 1995) (explaining the

purpose of enjoining certain conduct as being to “preserve the

‘status quo’ . . . to permit the trial court, upon full

adjudication of the case’s merits, more effectively to remedy

discerned wrongs.”); see also Stenberg v. Cheker Oil Co., 573

F.2d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 1978) (“The purpose of a preliminary

injunction is always to prevent irreparable injury so as to 

preserve the court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on

the merits.”).

A preliminary injunction cannot issue unless the moving

party satisfies four factors which establish its need for such

relief. See Esso Std. Oil Co. v. Monroig-Zavas, 445 F.3d 13, 17-

18 (1st Cir. 2006) (discussing the requisite showing to obtain a

preliminary injunction); see also Ross-Simons, 102 F.3d at 18-19

(explaining the burden of proof for a preliminary injunction). 

Those factors are: “(1) the likelihood of success on the merits;

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 18
4

(2) the potential for irreparable harm [to the movant] if the

injunction is denied; (3) the balance of relevant impositions,

i.e., the hardship to the nonmovant if enjoined as contrasted

with the hardship to the movant if no injunction issues; and (4)

the effect (if any) of the court’s ruling on the public

interest.” Esso Std. Oil, 445 F.3d at 18. If the plaintiff is

not able to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the

remaining factors “become matters of idle curiosity,”

insufficient to carry the weight of this extraordinary relief on

their own. See id. (the “sine qua non of the four-part inquiry

is likelihood of success on the merits”). Yet, “the predicted 

harm and the likelihood of success on the merits must be

juxtaposed and weighed in tandem.” Ross-Simons, 102 F.3d at 19. 

Background

Charles Wolff testified at the hearing that he is an

orthodox jew who requires a kosher diet. The prison has been

providing him, he says, with a kosher diet made up largely of

prepackaged “shelf stable” kosher meals. According to Rick

Stacy, the prison kitchen supervisor who testified at the

hearing, the prepackaged meals maximize the integrity of the

kosher food, because they can be steamed in the package and

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 4 of 18
5

served sealed to inmates, which allows for the separation of

kosher food from nonkosher food and appliances in the prison’s

kitchen. Wolff claims that he has refused to eat the shelf

stable prepackaged meals, however, because he cannot physically

tolerate them. Wolff testified that he suffers from extreme

abdominal cramps and severe diarrhea every time he eats the

kosher meals. 

Wolff further testified that the diet he is provided at the

prison fails to meet his medical needs. Specifically, he

testified to being denied adequate snacks to maintain his blood

sugar level although he is diabetic, and to being provided with

food high in fat, although he has high cholesterol and coronary

artery disease. 

Wolff’s other area of concern is that he is receiving

inadequate pain medication. Wolff wants the Court to direct the

prison medical staff to provide him with more ibuprofen and with

Mylanta. Wolff testified that he needs a certain amount of

ibuprofen and Mylanta to control his pain and stomach upset, but

that his treating physician at the prison disagrees with him, and

is therefore providing Wolff with ibuprofen at a lower dose. 

Wolff trestified that the pharmacy was unable to provide him with

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 5 of 18
6

Mylanta but that he does receive other medications for various

gastrointestinal ailments. Finally, Wolff testified that he has

a prescription for nitroglycerine, which is prescribed for him to

take in the event that he feels symptoms of an impending heart

attack. Wolff claims that his nitroglycerine has been taken from

him by corrections officers for up to three and a half hours at a

time when he has been placed into punitive segregation. Wolff

did not testify that he had actually been harmed by this action,

but expressed concern that the practice of taking his access to

nitrogylcerine away for even a few hours endangers his life.

Stacy explained at the hearing that when an inmate is

designated to have a kosher meal, the prison kitchen provides him

with that meal. If an inmate refuses the shelf stable entree, he

can still get the rest of his meal, but does not get an

alternative entree. Stacy testified, however, that if an inmate

has a medical pass that indicates he cannot tolerate certain

foods, a religiously acceptable substitution of approximately the

same nutritional value is made. Stacy testified that an inmate

presenting a food tolerance issue to kitchen staff would be

referred to health services to obtain an appropriate medical pass 

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 6 of 18
1Wolff claims that he has weighed as much as 230 pounds

during his incarceration.

7

as kitchen workers are not authorized or qualified to make

medical decisions.

Wolff further complains that the inadequacies in his diet

caused him to lose a dangerous amount of weight. Joyce Leeka,

the Administrator of Health Information Management for the

prison, testified that according to Wolff’s medical records, he

began his incarceration in 1996 at 144 pounds. Leeka testified

that in 2000, he weighed 1761⁄2 pounds at his annual physical, and

that he began gaining weight, reaching a high weight of 183

pounds in 2005.1 Leeka testified that once his diet was

controlled in order to treat his diabetes, Wolff’s weight

returned to the 140s. At his last weight check prior to the

August hearing, Wolff weighed 148 pounds. 

Additionally, Wolff expressed dissatisfaction with the

amount of ibuprofen the doctors prescribed for him, and with the

refusal of the pharmacy to provide him with Mylanta. Joyce Leeka

testified, however, that while Wolff may have disagreed with some

of the medical decisions made in his case, and therefore may not

have received his preferred medications or dosages, that he was

provided with a great deal of medical care, and at least fourteen

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 7 of 18
2At the time of the hearing, Wolff was being routinely

provided with, among other things, ibuprofen for pain, immodium

as needed for diarrhea, aspirin for his heart condition, two

statin drugs for his coronary artery disease and to lower his

cholesterol, Lipitor, another cholesterol-lowering drug, Prilosec

to treat gastrointestinal ailments, and a multivitamin.

3Leeka testified that Wolff’s prison diagnoses have included

high blood pressure, post-traumatic stress disorder, type II

diabetes (non-insulin dependent), extremely high cholesterol,

peripheral neuropathy, memory loss, Cushing’s syndrome, metabolic

syndrome, adrenal gland disease, coronary artery disease, bipolar

disease, gastrointestinal ailments, and prostate cancer.

4During his incarceration, Wolff has been treated medically

and surgically at outside hospitals and by outside specialists

for, among other things, prostate cancer, the removal of his

adrenal gland, as well as for his coronary artery disease, which

has required placement of two arterial stints.

8

medications2 to treat a myriad of conditions and complaints.3

Leeka indicated that Wolff’s medical records indicate that

Mylanta has never been prescribed for him at the prison. The

evidence also showed that there are medications that Wolff has

refused to take, or has discontinued voluntarily, such as

medication to treat his bipolar disorder. Leeka also testified

that Wolff has been seen frequently by the medical personnel at

the prison -- at least once a month and often more than that --

and referred to outside specialists or hospitals as necessary.4 

After the August 1 hearing, I directed the prison to

evaluate Wolff to determine whether or not he is able to tolerate

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 8 of 18
9

the kosher meals being provided to him. Defendants immediately

responded with notice to this Court of a comprehensive plan to

have Wolff monitored and evaluated to determine what, if any,

adverse impact the diet he was receiving had on his health. 

Further, the defendants arranged a consultation with an outside

nutritionist, and obtained a commitment from the prison’s medical

director, Dr. Robert McLeod, to provide Wolff with whatever diet

was necessary to insure that his nutritional, medical, and

spiritual needs were being met. Defendants’ counsel is to be

commended for his quick, thorough, and professional response to

my order.

To implement this Court’s directive, the prison placed Wolff

in the prison’s Health Services Center, in an isolation unit, for

a period of seven days. During that time, everything that Wolff

ate and drank was monitored. The food he received was recorded,

and the food that remained after he ate was recorded. During the

week in isolation, Wolff ate the prepackaged shelf stable Kosher

meals on four occasions, and refused to eat the rest of the

Kosher meals offered to him. On two occasions, when Wolff ate a

Kosher meal, he complained of some cramping. He also complained

of having diarrhea on a number of instances, but medical staff at

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 9 of 18
10

the prison examined all of his bowel movements and determined

that, aside from one occasion when a “scant” amount of loose

stool was detected, all of Wolff’s bowel movements during the

week were firm, and were not affected by eating the prepackaged

Kosher meals. 

To address his assertion that he is losing dangerous amounts

of weight, Wolff’s weight was monitored daily during his sevenday stay in the Health Services Center. Wolff did lose more than

two pounds during his that week. It appears, however, that he

was provided with a reasonable amount of food, and that he

refused much of the food he was offered. Further, there is no

evidence before the Court that his weight has dropped to a

dangerous level.

Discussion

As previously stated, in order to prevail on his motion for

preliminary injunction, Wolff must demonstrate: (1) that he is

likely to succeed on the merits of the claims underlying his

action, (2) that he will suffer from irreparable harm if the

injunction is not granted, (3) that the imposition on defendants

if the motion is granted is outweighed by the necessity of the

injunction, and (4) that the issuance of an injunction would not

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 10 of 18
11

unreasonably impact the public interest in this matter. See Esso

Std. Oil, 445 F.3d at 17-18. The essential questions before me

for consideration are whether or not Wolff will succeed on his

underlying cause, and whether, upon succeeding, Wolff will be

able to have meaningful redress for his injuries if no injunction

issues. See CMM Cable, 48 F.3d at 620-21. 

 In his underlying action, Wolff primarily complains that he

has been denied a kosher diet consistent with his faith. As a

preliminary matter, I find that Wolff concedes that he is

currently receiving a kosher diet consistent with his faith. 

Plaintiff did not introduce evidence at the hearing regarding any

claims that he may have arising out of previous denials of a

kosher diet. To the extent that he alleges that he may, at some

time during his incarceration, have been denied a kosher diet as

a sanction for eating non-kosher foods, however, I will allow, as

I did in my initial review of Wolff’s complaint, that he may have

stated a viable claim and will assume, without deciding, that he

has stated sufficient facts, although he did not present

additional evidence at the hearing on his likelihood of success,

to enable me to find that he may succeed on the merits of his

underlying claim. The focus of the hearing was on the harm Wolff

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 11 of 18
12

alleges from ongoing actions of the defendants in denying him a

nutritionally and medically adequate diet. 

The evidence presented at the hearing, and submitted to the

Court after the hearing, demonstrates that the prison has taken

great pains to insure that Wolff is provided with a diet that

meets the requirements of his religious faith, that is

nutritionally adequate, and that meets his medical needs. The

fact that Wolff is prescribed a multivitamin, that he is

frequently seen by physicians and other medical personnel, that

he is provided with regular medication, and that his test results

demonstrate that his diet is doing him no harm medically, clearly

show that Wolff is not likely to suffer from irreparable harm if

he is not provided with the frozen prepackaged kosher meals that

he prefers to the shelf stable prepackaged meals that he is

presently receiving. While it is clear that Wolff does not want

to eat the shelf stable meals, he has not presented evidence that

counters the weight of the medical evidence showing that his body

is not reacting adversely to the foods provided, or otherwise

demonstrated that his nutritional and medical needs are not being

met.

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 12 of 18
13

Further, the prison has taken the added step of referring

Wolff to an outside nutritionist to determine the advisability of

the foods with which he is presently provided. Additionally, the

prison has indicated its willingness to be responsive to Wolff’s

nutritional needs as they are made aware of such needs. The

evidence at the hearing demonstrated that much of the food Wolff

claims is denied to him and causing him to lose weight is

actually food that he has been offered and refused, not food that

is being withheld from him by the defendants. While it is

entirely understandable that Wolff would like to be provided with

food that is appetizing to him as well as nutritious, a diet is

not unconstitutionally inadequate because it does not taste good. 

The evidence before me, considered as a whole, indicates that

what the defendants have provided suffices to meet Wolff’s

religious, nutritional and medical needs, even if it is

unappealing to him. Accordingly, I cannot find that Wolff has

demonstrated any indication that his diet will cause him

irreparable harm.

Wolff’s claim that he is not being provided with adequate

pain medication fares no better. The prison demonstrated that

Wolff is being provided with a substantial amount of medical

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 13 of 18
14

care, and that all of his medical concerns, including

gastrointestinal ailments and pain, are currently being actively

treated by prison medical staff. As is the case with the

prepackaged meals, Wolff is not being provided with the

medication regimen that he prefers. This, however, does not

suffice to demonstrate that he will be irreparably harmed by the

medical treatment he is receiving. Accordingly, I find that

Wolff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating irreparable

harm if his injunction is not granted and I recommend that the

motion for a preliminary injunction be denied.

Motions for Contempt

In motions filed since the August hearing (document nos. 53-

55, 58, 60 & 62), Wolff seeks a finding of contempt against

prison kitchen supervisor Stacy for serving Wolff eggs and an

order from this Court directing the prison kitchen staff, under

Stacy’s direction, to provide Wolff with donuts and danish for

breakfast in lieu of eggs. Wolff further seeks a Court order

prohibiting inmate kitchen worker James Keach from having any

contact with Wolff’s kosher food, prohibiting the prison from

serving him eggs, and directing that he be fed in his cell so as

to avoid contact with the kitchen staff. 

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 14 of 18
5Because Wolff has high cholesterol that is controlled by

medication, the defendants concede that egg yolks are probably

not the wisest food choice for him. However, defendants assert,

nothing in Wolff’s medical history is complicated by the

ingestion of egg whites, and the yolks of hard-boiled eggs are

easily set aside. 

15

Defendants object to Wolff’s attempts to obtain contempt

rulings. Defendants assert that they have not, to date, been

subject to any order of this Court restricting any specific foods

from Wolff’s diet. Further, defendants argue that despite

extensive attention from medical professionals and a dietician,

there is no indication that Wolff has an allergy to eggs or that

his medical condition precludes him from eating hard-boiled

eggs.5 Accordingly, defendants argue that there is no reason for

this Court to order that Wolff not be served eggs. Further,

because no such orders are currently in place, plaintiff’s

motions for contempt should be denied. Wolff, in response to

defendants’ objection to his previously filed motions for

contempt, argues that an “agreement” entered into between this

Court and Rick Stacy had the force of a court order, and that

Stacy is therefore in violation of that order each time Wolff is

served an egg by the kitchen staff.

At the preliminary injunction hearing, I opined that if

Wolff’s cholesterol was very high, that it would likely be

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 15 of 18
16

inappropriate to serve him eggs as part of a medically

responsible diet. At that hearing, Stacy did say that, if that

were the case, something else could be substituted for eggs. The

evidence before the Court at this time, however, is that Wolff’s

cholesterol is very well-controlled with medication and that his

diet, although possibly unappealing to Wolff, is not having an

adverse impact on his cholesterol level. Further, the evidence

in this case is clear that defendants sent Wolff for a

consultation with an outside nutritionist and agreed to provide

him with whatever diet was medically indicated for him. 

This Court did not order Stacy or anyone else at the prison

not to serve Wolff any specific foods. I understood and accepted

Stacy’s testimony at the hearing, as an expression of his

willingness to substitute foods, if necessary, to create a

nutritionally and medically sound Kosher diet to Wolff if such a

substitution was necessary. This Court is not a medical

professional and I certainly had no intention of making a

diagnosis in Wolff’s case when I stated at the hearing that a

daily serving of three eggs was generally considered to be

contraindicated for those individuals who suffer from high

cholesterol; in the same vein, my statements to Mr. Stacy were

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 16 of 18
17

not an order to him to discontinue the service of eggs without

any professional medical opinion stating that such a

discontinuation was advisable. My order, instead, was that the

prison should evaluate Wolff’s tolerance to his diet and create

and implement a plan to make necessary changes if the diet was

not sound (document no. 49). Because there was no existing order

to be violated, I find that there was no contempt of court. 

Accordingly, the motions for contempt and to reconvene the

hearing (document nos. 52, 54, 55, 58, 60 & 62) are denied.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the requested

preliminary injunctive relief, as well as the contempt motions

filed by plaintiff, be denied. Any objections to this report and

recommendation must be filed within ten (10) days of receipt of

this notice. Failure to file objections within the specified

time waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. See

Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 17 of 18
18

(1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6

(1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 17, 2007

cc: Charles Jay Wolff, pro se

Andrew Livernois, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00321-PB Document 65 Filed 10/17/07 Page 18 of 18