Opinion ID: 4238082
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Replacement of the Wheelchair

Text: In the 2005 proceeding, Mr. Moore complained that his custom-made wheelchair had been stolen by prison staff and was never replaced with an equivalent model. The defendants responded that they were in the process of providing Mr. Moore with a new wheelchair, and the special master declined to order relief on Mr. Moore’s complaint about his wheelchair. The defendants provided a wheelchair, but Mr. Moore alleges that the replacement was inadequate. With the passage of twelve years, it is too late for Mr. Moore to appeal the special master’s 2005 order on the ground that it should have specified the type of wheelchair to be provided. See Order, filed Mar. 23, 6 2010, ECF No. 4381 (setting April 16, 2010, as the deadline for “any pro se compliance/enforcement claims for individual . . . injunctive or equitable relief” under the 2003 remedial plan). And he cannot obtain relief by enforcing the 2005 award because that award did not include relief on the claim involving the wheelchair. Thus, the district court did not err in sustaining the 2016 objection involving the wheelchair. IV. Notice and an Opportunity to Participate in Settlement Talks The class action is ongoing, and the district court is apparently conducting settlement talks on classwide issues. Mr. Moore requested notice and an opportunity to participate, and the district court denied this request. This ruling was not erroneous. 3 We have approved a protocol that prevents individual claimants from pursuing their own equitable claims relating to a class action while the class action is proceeding. McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165-66 (10th Cir. 1991). The district court followed this approach here, preventing disruption of the class-wide settlement discussions. This approach was not erroneous. 3 We need not decide the standard of review on this claim. The claim fails under any standard. 7