ORDER

RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Peter P. Mauchlin, appearing pro se, filed this action seeking damages alleging Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment1 based on the conditions of his confinement in 2011 at the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum in Florence, Colorado. By recommendation dated January 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge, whom this matter was then before, recommended the Court administratively close this case pursuant to Local Rule 41.2 subject to reopening for good cause after vision problems Plaintiff was (and allegedly is) having were addressed. (ECF No. 160.) No objection was filed to the recommendation. By Order dated February 3, 2015, the Court adopted the recommendation and: (1) administratively closed this case subject to reopening for good cause subsequent to Plaintiff's vision problems being addressed; and (2) stayed Plaintiff's obligation to pay the filing fee or to show cause as why he has no assets and no means by which to make each monthly payment until such time that the case is reopened (ECF No. 4). (ECF No. 162.)

This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's request (the "Motion") seeking the following relief: (1) to reopen his administratively closed case ("vacate the Court[`]s order, revive my lawsuit"); (2) to appoint counsel; and (3) to file a new lawsuit against "the current crop of prison officials/medical staff." (ECF No. 163, page 1.) In the Motion, with supporting exhibits, Plaintiff asserts his eye problems have not been addressed even though several months have passed, and this Court's order administratively closing this case was predicated on receiving medical treatment for such problems. In response, Defendants do not challenge Plaintiff's assertion concerning the lack of action on Plaintiff's eye problems and take no position on the reopening of Plaintiff's case. Defendants do contend, however, that if Plaintiff wishes to challenge his recent medical care, he must file a new lawsuit, and meet the necessary prerequisites for such a lawsuit. (ECF No. 164.)

Upon an examination of the Motion, Defendants' Response, the Court file, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds: (1) Plaintiff has shown good cause to reopen this case; (2) Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel will be referred to the Magistrate Judge for a determination; and (3) if Plaintiff wishes to challenge his recent/current medical care, he must file a new lawsuit. It is therefore ORDERED