Moulton v. Carroll County Department of Corrections et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Clarify and Compel. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard Moulton
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-391-PB

Carroll County Department of
Corrections, et al.
O R D E R
Defendants have filed paperwork (doc. no. 16) under seal in
response to an order (doc. no. 14) issued by the court on
September 13, 2011.

Defendants have also filed a motion to

clarify and compel (doc. no. 15).
I.

Documents Provided Pursuant to Court Order
Richard Moulton has requested injunctive relief seeking

certain dental care while he is incarcerated at the Carroll
County Department of Corrections.

The court held a hearing on

the motion on September 9, 2011.

After the hearing, the court

deferred ruling on Moulton’s request and instead directed
defendants to schedule an appointment for Mr. Moulton to see a
dentist for the purpose of conducting an examination and making
an assessment of Moulton’s dental needs.

Defendants were

directed to notify the court of the dentist’s recommendations
for treatment, whether defendants intended to follow those
recommendations, and the basis upon which they declined to

follow any of the recommendations.

Further, defendants were

directed to obtain the dentist’s professional opinion as to
whether extraction of any of Moulton’s teeth is a reasonable
treatment option, as well as the bases for the dentist’s
opinion.
Defendants have substantially complied with the court’s
order by obtaining an evaluation appointment for Moulton with
Dr. Christopher Kempton and by filing certain documents as
directed by the court (doc. no. 16).

The documents provided to

the defendants by the dentist contain information sought by the
court.

The court notes that defendants, via a letter from

Attorney Murray, have sought a supplemental report from the
dentist, requesting information the court required but that has
not yet been provided by the dentist.

The court finds that the

information sought by Attorney Murray is necessary to obtain an
appropriate resolution of this matter.

While all of the

questions posed by Attorney Murray in his letter to Dr. Kempton
are relevant and appropriately considered in a determination of
this matter, the court is particularly concerned with what range
of treatment options for each tooth Dr. Kempton would consider
to be medically reasonable for Moulton without regard to
Moulton’s wishes regarding extraction and repair of his teeth.
Accordingly, the court directs defendants to notify Dr.
Kempton that the court is seeking to obtain the requested
2

information as soon as possible.1

Defendants shall file a status

update regarding the same on or before November 2, 2011.
II.

Motion to Clarify and Compel
Defendants have filed a “Motion to Clarify and Compel”

(doc. no. 15), and seek a court order directing that: (1)
plaintiff consider all reasonable courses of treatment “for the
purpose of this litigation”; (2) plaintiff direct Dr. Kempton to
prepare a report of “ALL reasonable treatments for each tooth,
including the cost of each treatment” (emphasis in original);
and (3) provide defendant with additional time to respond to the
court’s September 13, 2011 Order (doc. no. 14) after ruling on
this motion.
In support of the motion, defendants allege that plaintiff
inappropriately spoke to Dr. Kemper about his wishes or made
other comments to Dr. Kemper, that plaintiff has made
misrepresentations to the court, and that plaintiff has violated
the “spirit of the court order” by failing to consider
extraction of his teeth as a reasonable treatment option.
Defendants further complain that Moulton has “not allowed” Dr.
Kemper to express his opinion as to reasonable treatment
options.

Defendants also claim that because Moulton stated that

he would have his dental work done on his own if he were
1

Defendants may satisfy this portion of the order by
providing Dr. Kempton with a copy of this order.
3

released on bail pretrial, that he is somehow using this
litigation to undermine his criminal prosecution.
Defendants assertions are baseless and do not merit relief.
The court finds that Moulton, by expressing his wish not to have
reparable teeth extracted may have limited Dr. Kemper’s
willingness to actually extract the teeth, but has not hamstrung
Dr. Kemper from having an opinion as to what treatments might be
reasonable in the abstract, were Moulton’s wishes not at issue.
The court has already addressed the issue of obtaining that
opinion from Dr. Kemper in this order.

The court further finds

that defendants’ assertions regarding both plaintiff’s alleged
misrepresentations and his alleged motivation for engaging in
this litigation are irrelevant to the resolution of his request
for injunctive relief.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the

motion to clarify and compel (doc. no. 15) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Landya B. McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
Date:
cc:

October 20, 2011

Richard Moulton, pro se
Stephen A. Murray, Esq.

LMB:jba

4