Montez, et al v. Romer, et al

Filing 5455

ORDER denying 5383 Letter, as to Keith A. Schwinaman, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/13/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 92-cv-00870-CMA
JESSE MONTEZ, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING CLAIMANT SCHWINAMAN’S REQUEST
FOR COMPLIANCE HEARING

This matter is before the Court on Claimant Keith A. Schwinaman’s June 27,
2013 letter to the Court (Doc. # 5383). In his letter, Claimant alleges that the
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) continues to deny him regular access to glucose
tablets in defiance of the Special Master’s May 2, 2008 Final Order (Doc. # 3377).
(Id. at 1.) That Order states:
[The Department of Corrections] will be required to provide to Claimant
glucose tablets on a regular basis. If medical and security staff determine
that hard candy would alleviate low blood sugar levels and be less of a
security risk, then hard candy may be provided to Claimant. In addition,
Claimant is to have the tablets or candy on his person so that he might
be able to utilize the yard and other facilities.
(Doc. # 3377 at 9.) Claimant requests a hearing to determine whether the Department
of Corrections (“DOC”) is in compliance with the Final Order. (Doc. # 5383 at 1.)

The Court has previously been obliged to enforce Defendants’ compliance with
the Final Order. (Doc. # 4950.) After considering evidence presented at a compliance
hearing on November 1, 2010, the Special Master found that “the final order of the
Special Master was not followed at all times by DOC staff.” (Id. at 4.) However, the
Special Master noted that the evidence presented at the hearing did “not reflect that the
final order was willfully disobeyed, but rather that staff did not know what needed to
be done.” (Id.) The Special Master attributed this confusion to the “lack of clarity in
Claimant’s medical records right after the final order was issued.” (Id.)
On September 11, 2013, the Court entered an order compelling Defendants to
respond to Claimant’s June 2013 allegations. (Doc. # 5410.) On September 20, 2013,
Defendants filed their response and supporting documents. (Doc. # 5416.) In that
response, Defendants aver that the time in which Claimant alleges that he was denied
glucose tablets was coordinate with his and other inmates’ evacuation due to wildfires
near Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility (“CTCF”). However, Defendants claim
that Claimant was never denied access to glucose tablets and Claimant’s own
submission to the Court states that he was given four tablets. Defendants further state
that during his evacuation, Claimant was given a “road snack” to curtail a diabetic
episode, but Claimant refused to consume it. Since that time, Claimant has been
returned to CTCF and his file has been updated to ensure it reflects the accommodation
for glucose tablets, which Defendants continue to provide as evidenced by the medical
records provided to the Court. Given the atypical nature of this incident, the Court does
not deem it necessary to hold a hearing. Instead it reminds Defendants of their
2

continuing obligation, pursuant to the Final Order, to provide Claimant with glucose
tablets and/or hard candy. (Doc. # 3377.) Thus, Claimant’s motion is denied.
The Court has now disposed of all pending claims by Claimant. Consequently,
it directs Claimant to its Order on Continuing Jurisdiction (Doc. # 5414), in which the
Court informed Claimant that once it issues an order on his pending claim, it will decline
to exercise jurisdiction over subsequent complaints relating to substandard treatment.
The Court hopes that further litigation is not necessary. However, should it be
necessary, Claimant may pursue any further complaints that he is the victim of
discrimination on account of his disability or concerns regarding substandard medical
treatment or equipment in a separate action, either under the Eighth Amendment or
relevant state statutes. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346-47 (1981) (serious
deprivation of basic human needs may constitute cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution); Fitzgerald v.
Corrections Corp. of America, 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005) (Claims for
substandard medical treatment are not actionable under the Americans with Disabilities
Act). The Court will summarily strike any future filings by Claimant in this action.
It is ORDERED that Claimant’s motion (Doc. # 5383) is DENIED.
Dated: December

13 , 2013.
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
.
3