Townsend v. Colorado Department of Corrections
671 F. App'x 712
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Juvencia Townsend, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued corrections employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and due-process violations.
- The district court denied her request for appointed counsel, dismissed her claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and as time-barred or insufficient, and denied a discovery/request for reports.
- The district court also declined to recuse despite Townsend’s assertion the judge was biased from presiding over her criminal trial.
- Townsend appealed the dismissal and the denial of counsel and disclosure requests; she sought recusal of the district judge.
- The Tenth Circuit considered three narrow issues on appeal: judicial recusal, appointment of counsel, and denial of requested reports/initial disclosures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial recusal | Judge should have recused for bias from presiding over her criminal trial | Adverse rulings/criticism alone do not require recusal | No recusal required; Townsend gave no facts showing disqualifying bias (In re American Ready Mix standard) |
| Appointment of counsel | District court abused discretion in denying appointed counsel | No constitutional right to counsel in civil case; denial reviewed for abuse of discretion | Denial affirmed: claims not complex, plaintiff could adequately present them (Johnson; 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) standard) |
| Initial disclosures / reports | Court erred denying request for reports/documents | Prisoner civil actions are exempt from initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B) | Denial upheld because prisoner actions are exempt from those disclosure requirements |
| Merits/exhaustion/retaliation timing | Plaintiff argued claims should proceed on merits | District court found failure to exhaust, insufficient discrimination claim, and retaliation claim time-barred | Dismissal affirmed on those grounds (appellate decision focused on the three narrow procedural issues but affirmed dismissal) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Am. Ready Mix, Inc., 14 F.3d 1497 (10th Cir. 1994) (adverse rulings or judicial criticism alone do not require recusal)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases; appointment subject to district court discretion)
- Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390 (10th Cir. 2016) (factors for evaluating request for appointed counsel: merits, nature of claims, plaintiff’s ability to present, complexity)