Mauchlin v. Davis et al

Filing 192

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 2/2/16. The Renewed Motion 179 is hereby DENIED. (bsimm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01449-RM-NYW
PETER P. MAUCHLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. P. ZHON, Psychologist,
ASSOCIATE WARDEN MUNSON,
ASSOCIATE WARDEN MILUSNIC,
CHIEF CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISOR KRIST,
CHIEF CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISOR LLOYD,
UNIT MANAGER P. RANGEL, and
CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISOR JANSON,
Defendants.

ORDER
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This civil action comes before the court on Plaintiff Peter P. Mauchlin’s (“Plaintiff” or
“Mr. Mauchlin”) Renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel seeking, inter alia, appointment of
counsel, raised orally at the Status Conference on December 29, 2015 [#179] (the “Renewed
Motion”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Order of Reference dated September 1, 2015
Order [#165] and December 29, 2015 memorandum [#182], the Renewed Motion is before this
Magistrate Judge. At the hearing, Mr. Mauchlin insisted that this court should grant his renewed
request for appointment of counsel due to untreated vision issues that previously led to an agreed
upon administrative closure of this case.

[#163 at 1]. Due to Mr. Mauchlin’s assertions that the

actions of the Bureau of Prisons were impeding his ability to receive treatment for his eye

condition, this court ordered Defendants to file a Status Report on Mr. Mauchlin’s eye treatment
and the reasons why Mr. Mauchlin had not yet received the cataract surgery for which he had
been allegedly approved.
Defendants filed the Status Report on January 11, 2016. [#184]. In that Status Report,
Defendants included a declaration from Steve Cough, Mr. Mauchlin’s treating optometrist.
[#184-1]. Dr. Clough indicated that Mr. Mauchlin had been scheduled for cataract surgery on
October 26, 2016, but refused to wear the custody control belt required for his transport. [Id. at ¶
13]. As a result of his failure to comply, Mr. Mauchlin was not transported for surgery, and the
failure to comply was interpreted as a refusal of his cataract surgery. [Id.]. Due to the refusal,
the prior order for cataract surgery was rescinded, and in order to be seen by an ophthalmologist
to receive a future cataract surgery, a new consultation is necessary. [Id. at ¶ 14]. Dr. Clough
further attests that on January 8, 2016, he made an effort to schedule Mr. Mauchlin for an eye
examination based on his complaints raised during the Status Conference on December 29, 2015,
but Mr. Mauchlin refused and said that he was “not interested.” [Id. at ¶ 15].
Mr. Mauchlin filed documents related to his eye condition on January 27, 2016. [#183,
#189].

In both filings, Mr. Mauchlin attaches several historical documents and continues to

insist that his cataract surgery was unduly delayed. See, e.g. [#189-6 at 1]. The documents
reflect that Mr. Mauchlin was advised that he had been approved for the surgery; that “[y]ou will
also be subject [sic] the proper security procedures for outgoing inmates;” and that “[f]ailure to
comply with this request and consent will result in cancelation of your Ophthalmology Surgery.”
[#183-1 at 10]. Mr. Mauchlin states that he was informed that “MEDICAL TREATMENT HAD
BEEN CANCELLED (DENIED TO ME) ON THE BASIS THAT I HAD REFUSED TO SIGN

2

A (NON-MEDICAL) DOCUMENT (THAT I COULD NOT SEE/READ.). [#183-1 at 20]. Mr.
Mauchlin further denied that there was no “REASONABLE BASIS TO CANCEL MY TRIP TO
THE HOSPITAL, THEREBY

DENYING ME MEDICAL TREATMENT, SORELY

NEEDED.” [Id.].
Neither filing by Mr. Mauchlin addressed Dr. Clough’s contention that he refused to wear
the security belt required for his transport or Dr. Clough’s contention that he attempted to followup with Mr. Mauchlin on January 8, 2016. [#183, #189]. The court anticipated asking Mr.
Mauchlin to address these issues during the Status Conference on February 2, 2016, but Mr.
Mauchlin declined to participate in the Status Conference, despite the court’s order to do so on
December 29, 2016. [#178, #190].
While the court does not doubt that Mr. Mauchlin was frustrated by the delay that he
perceived was associated with his cataract surgery, nothing in Mr. Mauchlin’s filing explains or
justifies why Mr. Mauchlin failed to comply with the requirements of his transport, why Mr.
Mauchlin refused to see Dr. Clough on January 8, or why Mr. Mauchlin refused to participate in
the further Status Conference set by court order. Based on the record before it, this court can
only conclude that Mr. Mauchlin’s own actions have led to his failure to have cataract surgery at
this point. The court is not inclined to appoint counsel in these circumstances, when there are
limited resources to afford counsel in civil cases and where it appears that Plaintiff is refusing to
comply with direction that could remedy the basis for his request for counsel, i.e., that he is
sight-impaired.

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Renewed Motion is hereby DENIED.
DATED: February 2, 2016

BY THE COURT:
s/ Nina Y. Wang
United States Magistrate Judge

4