Opinion
No. 2:00-CV-1202
April 25, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate in Southeastern Correctional Institution ["SCI"], brings this action for denial of dental care under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff names as defendants Reginald Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ["ODRC"]; Paul Gaston, Medical Services Dental Director of ODRC; Robert Hurt, Warden of SCI; and Dr. Jacinto Beard, a Contract Dentist for SCI. This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motions for a temporary restraining order in which plaintiff asks that the Court order defendants to arrange a dental examination and treatment plan by an oral surgeon independent of ODRC.
I. Background
Plaintiff alleges that, when he entered the custody of ODRC in August 1997, an initial dental screening performed at the Correctional Reception Center noted only a requirement for prosthetic and prophylactic treatment. Complaint, at 2. Plaintiff contends that, in December 1998, he arrived at SCI with several serious dental problems. Id. In or around March or April 1999, plaintiff received dental treatment from Dr. White, the attending dentist at that time, who replaced a large filling and capped the tooth. Id. At that time, plaintiff alleges, Dr. White reviewed x-rays and scheduled both prophylactic treatment and immediate treatment for deep caries. Id. Plaintiff later stated that Dr. White scheduled treatment for another tooth, an upper molar, at the same time. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Answer, at 2. However, Dr. White departed SCI in July 1999 without providing any of this treatment. Complaint, at 2-3. Plaintiff contends that the tooth capped by Dr. White continues to cause him pain and has impaired plaintiffs ability to chew food. Id., at 3.
Plaintiff states that he waited approximately two months for this treatment after the tooth had completely disintegrated. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Answer, at 2.
Plaintiff alleges that several months elapsed before a new dentist, a Dr. Hubert, arrived at SCI. Id. According to plaintiff; Dr. Hubert diagnosed caries, a gum infection and the need for prophylactic treatment. Id. Dr. Hubert also indicated, according to plaintiff, that each diagnosis required immediate treatment, but that he was unable to perform the required treatment due to inadequate facilities and equipment. Id. Dr. Hubert allegedly left SCI without providing any treatment. Id.
On April 19, 2000, defendant Beard examined plaintiff. Affidavit of Dr. Jacinto Beard Attacked to Defendants' Memorandum contra Plaintiff's Motion for Temporaly Restraining Order § 14. At that time, plaintiff was scheduled to receive a filling in his #14 tooth on May 15, 2000, and his name was placed on the waiting list for a cleaning. Id. On May 15, 2000, however, SCI was locked down and dental services were suspended; plaintiffs treatment was rescheduled for June 14, 2000. Id., § 15. On June 14, 2000, the attending dentist was called away from SCI; plaintiff's treatment was rescheduled for July 12, 2000. Id., § 16. On July 12, 2000, plaintiffs #14 tooth was filled, and his name was placed on the waiting list to receive a filling in his #30 tooth. Id., § 17. That tooth was filled on September 27, 2000.
Plaintiff alleges that "a major problem should have been obvious to the dentist. An installation pin driven into the maxillary bone, where Plaintiff was missing an upper central incisor tooth, was the obvious source of severe gum infection." Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Answer, at 2.
Plaintiff was also scheduled for an oral cleaning on October 18, 2000; however, when plaintiff appeared for his cleaning, he refused the cleaning and requested that dental x-rays be taken instead. Id., § 19. After x-rays were taken, plaintiff consented to a visual dental exam, after which Dr. Beard diagnosed tooth brush abrasions, possible root caries between the #14 and #15 teeth, a root tip in the #8 area, and a need for cleaning. Id. Dr. Beard instructed plaintiff on proper brushing technique and care of his teeth. Id. On October 27, 2000, plaintiff was again examined and diagnosed with gum recession on the #14, #15 and #16 teeth. Id., § 20. It was recommended that plaintiff have his teeth cleaned and the root tip extracted. These treatments were scheduled and pain medication was administered. Id. On November 3, 2000, plaintiffs root tip was extracted. Id., § 21. Examination at that time revealed no evidence to substantiate plaintiffs claims of pain. Id. On December 1, 2000, plaintiff was ill and did not undergo the recommended cleaning. Id., § 22; Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Answer, at 7. On December 29, 2000, the attending dentist was called away from SCI, and plaintiff's cleaning was rescheduled for January 3, 2001. Second Affidavit of Dr. Jacinto Beard Attached to Defendants' Memorandum contra to Plaintiff's Urgent Motion for Hearing on Temporary Restraining Order § 23. The cleaning took place on that date. Id., § 24. Examination at that time also revealed moderate plaque, slight decay between the #15 and #16 teeth, and decay on the #19 tooth. Id. It was recommended that the decay between the #15 and #16 teeth be monitored and that the #19 tooth be extracted due to irreversible decay. Id. Plaintiff refused the extraction of his #19 tooth. Id.
There is some disagreement concerning the dentist who diagnosed the root tip. Defendants contend that Dr. Beard diagnosed the problem. Beard Affidavit § 20. Plaintiff contends that a Dr. Pamela Gant diagnosed and treated the problem. Plaintiff's Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Answer, at 3.
Plaintiff presents evidence that
the excessive pain and suffering caused by Plaintiff's dental problems caused him to seek assistance from the Institution's Mental Health Services and the Institutional Inspector. A different dentist (Dr. Pamela Gant) saw Plaintiff at the behest of the Institutional Inspector that same day, took x-rays, provided pain relief medication and scheduled Plaintiff for treatment.Plaintiff's Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Answer, at 3. Plaintiff also states that, when the root tip was extracted by Dr. Gant on November 3, 2000, an installation pin, which had attached to it a piece of rotten bone, was also removed. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he is currently suffering from "broken teeth, inflamed, bleeding, sore gums, loose teeth, deep carious lesions, malocclusion, and periodontal diseases[,]" that these conditions cause him to suffer pain, and have interfered with his ability to masticate certain foods, leading to digestive problems and weight loss. Complaint, at 3.
Plaintiff alleges that he sees the SCI medical doctor, Dr. Guleff, "who has provided prescription medication for pain relief[.]" Complaint, at 3.
II. Discussion
A. Standard
Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order seeks an order from the Court requiring defendants to arrange a dental examination and treatment plan by an oral surgeon independent of ODRC. When determining whether to grant interim injunctive relief a district court must consider:
(1) the likelihood that the party seeking relief will succeed on the merits of the claim; (2) whether the party seeking relief will suffer irreparable harm without the temporary restraining order; (3) the probability that granting the requested relief will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest is advanced by the issuance of the temporary restraining order.Planet Earth Entertainment, Inc. v. Edwards, 84 F. Supp.2d 891, 894 (S.D. Ohio 1999). See also Project Vote! v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, 578 F. Supp. 7, 9 (S.D. Ohio 1982); McDonald Co. Securities, Inc. v. Bayer, 910 F. Supp. 348, 351 (N.D. Ohio 1995). No one factor is determinative, but all these factors are to be balanced by the Court. Planet Earth Entertainment, 84 F. Supp.2d at 894.
B. Application
Defendants argue that plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied because plaintiff has failed to establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits of his complaint or that he will suffer irreparable injury absent the injunctive relief. As to plaintiffs claims against defendants Wilkinson, Gaston, and Hurt, the defendants argue that plaintiff seeks to base liability on their supervisory capacities, which is insufficient under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that, by failing to provide him adequate dental care, defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution proscribes "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Serious medical needs encompass dental needs. Chapman v. Rhodes, 434 F. Supp. 1007, 1020 (S.D. Ohio 1997), rev.'d on other grounds, Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981). See also Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1988); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 576 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981). While deliberate indifference does not require proof of actual intent to inflict pain, the official action or omission alleged must demonstrate a deliberate indifference to the prisoner's serious medical needs. Weeks v. Chaboudy, 984 F.2d 185, 187 (6th Cir. 1993). Deliberate indifference requires that the official both know of and disregard an excessive risk to the inmate's health or safety; that is, the official "must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Mere negligence in regard to the prisoner's medical needs does not amount to deliberate indifference. Hicks v. Frey, 992 F.2d 1450, 1455 (6th Cir. 1993). Nor does a dispute as to the type of treatment give rise to an action under § 1983. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107; Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5 (6th Cir. 1976); Gomm v. DeLand, 729 F. Supp. 767, 779 (D. Utah 1990). "[A] prisoner who suffers pain needlessly when relief is readily available has a cause of action against those whose deliberate indifference is the cause of his suffering." Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561, 566 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Boretti v. Wiscomb, 930 F.2d 1150, 1154-55 (6th Cir. 1991)). See also Westlake, 537 F.2d at 860.
Additionally, plaintiff must allege that each individual defendant caused the claimed constitutional violation. "In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must make a showing of `direct responsibility' for the unconstitutional actions. . . ." Hays v. Jefferson County, 668 F.2d 869, 873-74 (6th Cir. 1982). The plaintiff must "show that the official at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct" that is alleged in the complaint. Id. It does not appear that the non-dental prison officials, who do not provide dental care, can be held responsible for any claimed inadequacies in plaintiff's dental treatment.
Furthermore, the relief requested by plaintiff is not necessary to remedy irreparable injury. Defendants have presented evidence that plaintiff has received dental treatment as late as January 2001. Second Beard Affidavit § 24. At that time, not only did plaintiff receive an oral cleaning, but it was recommended that plaintiffs #19 tooth be extracted. To the extent that the prescribed treatment was not performed, it was because plaintiff declined the recommended treatment. Id. Although plaintiff alleges that he has suffered pain in the past and continues to suffer pain, he also alleges that he "continues to be seen by the S.C.I. medical doctor (Dr. Rand Guleff) who has provide prescription medication for pain relief." Complaint, at 3. Because plaintiff is apparently receiving continuing dental treatment and pain medication, plaintiff has not demonstrated irreparable injury remediable only by the extraordinary remedy of interim injunctive relief.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiffs motions for a temporary restraining order are DENIED. Moreover, plaintiff s October 17, 2000 motion for permanent injunctive relief is DENIED pending consideration of the merits of plaintiffs claims.