Huggins v. Buchannan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 24-cv-02403-PAB-TPO
ANTHONY HUGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BUCHANNAN,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Anthony Huggins’s Notice of
Retaliation and Request for Couurt [sic] Order to Cease Retaliation [Docket No. 29] and
Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief [Docket No. 33]. Defendant Christopher
Buchannan, a physician who provided contract medical care to inmates at Colorado
Territorial Correctional Facility, responded to the “Notice of Retaliation” with a “Notice of
Non-Response.” Docket No. 32. 1 Dr. Buchannan responded to the motion for
injunctive relief. Docket No. 37. Mr. Huggins did not file a reply. Mr. Huggins filed a
“Supplement to Injunctive Relief,” Docket No. 44, after the filing of Dr. Buchannan’s
response. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
1 In the “Notice of Non-Response,” Dr. Buchanan states that, “to the extent that
the Court construes Huggins’ Notice as an attempt at amending his claims, Defendant
Buchannan requests that the Court deny any such request” and that, “to the extent that
Huggins intends to put this Court and Defendant Buchannan on notice of a future intent
to amend, Defendant Buchannan does not intend to respond.” Docket No. 32 at 4,
¶ 14.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02403-PAB-TPO Document 52 filed 01/22/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 7

2
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Huggins, a prisoner at Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility in the custody
of the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”), filed his complaint on August 29,
2024. Docket No. 2. On September 17, 2024, Magistrate Judge Richard Gurley
identified several issues in the initial complaint and directed Mr. Huggins to file an
amended complaint. See generally Docket No. 6. On October 15, 2024, Mr. Huggins
filed his first amended complaint. Docket No. 7. On October 22, 2024, Judge Gurley
identified several issues with the first amended complaint and directed Mr. Huggins to
file a second amended complaint. See generally Docket No. 8. On November 20,
2024, Mr. Huggins filed a second amended complaint. Docket No. 9.
The second amended complaint names two defendants: Dr. Buchannan and
Jane Gilden. Id. at 2. The complaint alleges that Dr. Bucchannan is a doctor who
provides, pursuant to a contract with CDOC, medical care to inmates at Colorado
Territorial Correctional Facility. Id. Jane Gilden is a nurse practitioner who similarly
provides medical care to Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility inmates pursuant to a
contract. Id. The complaint alleges a single claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 3. In the complaint,
Mr. Huggins identifies two medical issues to which he asserts the defendants have been
deliberately indifferent. See generally id. at 4-7, 10-11. First, Mr. Huggins alleged that
a tuberculosis shot he received in 2015 resulted in nerve damage and a cyst, that he
experiences constant itching and drainage from the cyst, and that the cyst has not been
properly treated. See, e.g., id. at 4, ¶¶ 3-4. Second, Mr. Huggins alleges that he had a
knee replacement surgery in 2019 and that he has not received the pain medications
Case No. 1:24-cv-02403-PAB-TPO Document 52 filed 01/22/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 7

3
and follow-up care required for his knee. See, e.g., id. at 4-5, ¶¶ 5-6. Mr. Huggins
alleged that Dr. Buchannan ignored recommendations and prescriptions from outside
medical specialists and has refused to treat Mr. Huggins’s conditions. Id. at 4-7, ¶¶ 3-
10, 12-13, 17, 19.
On November 27, 2024, Judge Gurley found that the complaint failed “to provide
a short and plain statement of his Eighth Amendment claim that demonstrates he is
entitled to relief against Nurse Practitioner Gilden” and recommended that the claim
against Nurse Practitioner Gilden be dismissed. Docket No. 12 at 6. No party objected
to the recommendation. On December 20, 2024, Senior Judge Lewis Babcock
accepted the recommendation and dismissed Nurse Practitioner Gilden. Docket No. 13
at 1-2. The case was then reassigned to the undersigned. Docket No. 14.
On June 30, 2025, the Court received a filing from Mr. Huggins entitled “Notice of
Retaliation and Request for Couurt [sic] Order to Cease Retaliation.” Docket No. 29.
The notice was postmarked June 26, 2025. Id. at 8. The notice “asks for the Courts
[sic] active protection from retaliatory conduct.” Id. at 1. The notice explains that Mr.
Huggins had a wheelchair assigned to him, but that Nurse Practitioner Gilden directed
that the wheelchair be taken away from him and that Mr. Huggins instead use a walking
cane for his mobility issues. Id. Mr. Huggins appears to allege various claims under the
Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. See
id. at 3-6. Mr. Huggins asks that the Court “order defendant to return the wheelchair
and stop retaliating on plaintiff for filing his 1983 lawsuit.” Id. at 6.
On July 17, 2025, the Court received Mr. Huggins’s motion seeking a preliminary
injunction. See Docket No. 33. The motion was postmarked July 15, 2025. On the first
Case No. 1:24-cv-02403-PAB-TPO Document 52 filed 01/22/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 7

4
page of the motion, Mr. Huggins “asks the Court to dismiss the retaliation part of his
lawsuit by granting the relief of ordering defendant to return his wheelchair.” Id. at 1.
On the third page of the motion, Mr. Huggins requests that the Court grant a
“preliminary injunction requiring defendant Gilden to return wheelchair.” Id. at 3. Mr.
Huggins then asserts that he has been prescribed a wheelchair by a doctor and that
without a wheelchair he faces the risk of falling and injuring himself. Id. at 3-4. The
motion itself provides no further details regarding the wheelchair, but Mr. Huggins
attaches a copy of a CDOC grievance form which contains both the grievance Mr.
Huggins filed with CDOC and a CDOC official’s response. Id. at 2. From the grievance
form, the Court understands that Mr. Huggins was assigned a wheelchair, but, after
officials saw Mr. Huggins running up a set of stairs, they took his wheelchair away. Id.
On July 17, 2025, the same day that the Court received the motion for a
preliminary injunction, Mr. Huggins appeared before Magistrate Judge Timothy P.
O’Hara for a status conference in this case. Docket No. 34 at 1. Judge O’Hara
addressed the “Notice of Retaliation and Request for Couurt [sic] Order to
Cease Retaliation” and explained to Mr. Huggins that the issues raised in that filing did
not appear to relate to the claims in the operative complaint and were thus not
appropriately before the Court. Id. Judge O’Hara explained that, in order to raise the
issues regarding the wheelchair, Mr. Huggins would need either to file a new complaint
or seek leave to amend his complaint. Id. at 1-2. Mr. Huggins indicated he understood
Case No. 1:24-cv-02403-PAB-TPO Document 52 filed 01/22/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 7

5
Judge O’Hara’s explanation. 2 Mr. Huggins did not mention to Judge O’Hara that he had
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the issue of wheelchair access. 3
On September 5, 2025, Mr. Huggins filed a “supplement” to his request for
injunctive relief. Docket No. 44. The supplement, which is four sentences long, states
that “[p]laintiff’s enlarged heart condition requires the prescription not to be overruled by
defendant.” Id. at 1. Mr. Huggins lists several medical symptoms he is experiencing
and states that he has been prescribed three medications, but that “defendant overrules
these prescriptions and this puts Plaintiff life at serious risk of harm.” Id. Mr. Huggins
requests that the Court “consider this in its ruling for injunctive relief.” Id.
III. ANALYSIS
Mr. Huggins’s motion requests that the Court issue a preliminary injunction
requiring Nurse Practitioner Gilden to assign Mr. Huggins a wheelchair. Docket No. 33
at 3. The motion does not mention Dr. Buchanan. Nurse Practitioner Gilden is no
longer a party to this case. See Docket No. 13 at 2 (“Defendant Jane Gilden is
dismissed as a party to this action.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 grants courts
the authority to issue preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, but this
authority does not typically extend to non-parties. See McKenzie v. City & Cnty. of
Denver, No. 21-cv-00833-PAB-STV, 2022 WL 22860719, at *1 (D. Colo. Nov. 28, 2022)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (a)-(b), (d) and Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Qasim, 225 F. 3d
2 Mr. Huggins’s acknowledgment is not reflected in the minutes from the hearing,
Docket No. 34, but is audible in the recording of the hearing.
3 Court records reflect that Mr. Huggins’s motion for a preliminary injunction was
not docketed until after the conclusion of the status conference.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02403-PAB-TPO Document 52 filed 01/22/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 7

6
645 (2d Cir. 2000)). Thus, the Court will deny the request to enjoin Nurse Practitioner
Gilden.
Moreover, the request involves relief that is outside the scope of the complaint.
“A preliminary injunction is . . . appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same
character as that which may be granted finally.” Hicks v. Jones, 332 F. App’x 505, 508
(10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (emphasis added) (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines v.
United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). Here, plaintiff requests relief based on
unrelated acts not alleged in his complaint and, therefore, is not “of the same character”
of the relief which his complaint seeks. See id. Mr. Huggins’s complaint focuses on two
medical issues: treatment for the cyst on his arm and treatment for his knee
replacement. See generally Docket No. 9 at 4-7, 10-11. As Judge O’Hara explained to
Mr. Huggins at the status conference, any grievance regarding wheelchair access is
outside the scope of the operative complaint. As a result, the relief requested in
plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is “on [] matter[s] lying wholly outside the
issues in [his] suit.” Hicks, 332 F. App’x at 508 (quoting De Beers, 325 U.S. at 220).
For this reason, too, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
The “Supplement to Injunctive Relief,” to the extent it expands the scope of the
motion, also fails. The operative complaint makes no mention of Mr. Huggins having
any heart condition or having his medications for that condition withheld. Thus, this
request improperly exceeds the scope of the second amended complaint.
Finally, the Court will deny the Notice of Retaliation, Docket No. 29, insofar as it
can be construed as a motion requesting relief, for being unrelated to any matters
raised in the operative complaint.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02403-PAB-TPO Document 52 filed 01/22/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 7

7
V. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Notice of Retaliation and Request for Couurt [sic] Order
to Cease Retaliation [Docket No. 29], construed as a motion requesting relief, is
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief [Docket No. 33],
as supplemented by Docket No. 44, is DENIED.
DATED January 22, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
______________	_ ___________
Case No. 1:24-cv-02403-PAB-TPO Document 52 filed 01/22/26 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 7