Eunice v. Ditslenr et al

Filing 11

ORDERED that the Court will permit Eunice fourteen days to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 5/19/2014. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
DAVID LEE EUNICE, SR.
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV413-275
CYNTHIA DITSLENR, WARDEN
DAVID FRAZIER, DOCTOR
MOTLEY, DEPUTY WARDEN SUE
MICKENS, DOCTOR JACKSON,
KATHIE KENNEDY, and DEPUTY
WARDEN HENRY,
Defendants.

Coastal State Prison inmate David Lee Eunice sues present and
former prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of his dental
care.' Doe. 1. He alleges that:

' Since he has completed his in forma pauperis (IFP) paperwork, does. 5 & 8,
the Court will now screen his case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which directs
district courts to dismiss sua sponte an IFP action for failure to state a claim. See also
28 U.S.C. § 1915A (courts must identify "cognizable claims" filed by prisoners or other
detainees and dismiss claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for
relief, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief, and 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) (allowing dismissal on the same four standards provided by §
1915A as to any prisoner suit brought "with respect to prison conditions").
The Court applies the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standards here. Leal v. Ga. Dep't
of Corrs., 254 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2001). Allegations in the complaint are
thus viewed as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bumpus

Each defendant has shown d[elliber[ate] indifference toward the
plaintiff by not allowing and giving dental treatment. The Warden
David Frazier and Kathie Kennedy ha[ve] both told the plaintiff
[that] he didn't need dentures when knowing[] in order to chew food
you must have teeth. [Deputy Warden] Sue Mickens [at]
Washington S.P. 2 and [Deputy Warden] Henry [at Coastal State
Prison] denied the plaintiff dental help by refusing to make dental
do the[irl job which is set forth by the Department of Correction by
law & [standard operating procedures].
Both dentist[s] [] show[ed] [no] concern for the plaintiff{'s]
serious medical need for dentures and [for treatment for the] gum
disease "Pyorrhea" [(periodontitis)] which [] cause[d] the
deter[iora]tion of the plaintiffs gums. Both dentist turned the[ir]
heads and simply refused to treat the plaintiff.
Doc. 1 at 5 (footnote added). Eunice wants "dental implants for both top
and bottom" plus $75,000 in damages."

Id. at 6.

It has long been established that "deliberate indifference to [a
prisoner's] serious medical needs . . . constitutes the 'unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain' . . . proscribed by the Eighth Amendment."

v. Watts, 448 F. App'x 3, 4 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2011). But conclusory allegations fail.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (discussing a 12(b)(6) dismissal). "[T]he
pleading standard [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual
allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harm
-ed-me accusation." Id. (citations omitted); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
(9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings are still construed liberally after Iqbal).
2

Apparently, Eunice had been housed at Washington State Prison and thus
alleges that he was denied this dental treatment care, as well as at the Coastal State
Prison, to which he has since been transferred. Doe. 1 at 7 (listing each defendant;
three from each prison).
2

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To state a cognizable claim
for the violation of his constitutional right to humane medical treatment,
a prisoner must assert facts establishing three elements. "First, a
plaintiff must set forth evidence [that he had] an objectively serious
medical need." Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003)
(quoting and citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)); Taylor

v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2000); Adams v. Poag, 61 F.3d
1537, 1543 (11th Cir. 1995). Second, "a plaintiff must prove that the
prison official acted with an attitude of 'deliberate indifference' to that
serious medical need." Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1243; McElligott v. Foley,
182 F.3d 1248 1 1254 (11th Cir. 1999); Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353,
1363 (11th Cir. 1999). And third, as is true in all tort actions, the
plaintiff must also establish that the defendant's indifference proximately
caused his injury. Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir.
While Estelle did not define the term "deliberate indifference," it made clear
that something more than mere negligence or medical malpractice is necessary to state
a valid claim of inhumane treatment under the Eighth Amendment. 429 U.S. at 106;
see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 U.S. 825 (1994) (holding that "subjective
recklessness as used in the criminal law is. . . the test for 'deliberate indifference," id.
at 839-40, which requires proof that the prison official had actual knowledge of an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety; therefore an official cannot be liable for his
"failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not," id. at
838).
3

2007).
To establish a sufficiently serious medical need, an inmate must
demonstrate that his medical problem "has been diagnosed by a physician
as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person
would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention."

Goebert at

1326 (citation omitted). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that "[i]n
certain circumstances, the need for dental care combined with the effects
of not receiving it may give rise to a sufficiently serious medical need to
show objectively a substantial risk of serious harm."

Farrow v. West, 320

F.3d at 1243-44. Certainly, a dental condition may rise to the level of a
serious medical need when the condition results in significant pain.

See

Newsome v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 2009 WL 1469203 (S.D. Ga. May
26, 2009). In Farrow, the Eleventh Circuit found that a state prisoner
established a serious dental need based on evidence demonstrating "pain,
continual bleeding and swollen gums, two remaining teeth slicing into
gums, weight loss, and [] continuing medical problems." Farrow at 124445.
While Eunice states that he suffers from gum disease and that the

prison officials should know "that in order to chew food you must have
teeth," (doc. 1 at 5), he has not offered any facts showing when his dental
problems arose, how many teeth he has lost, whether he is able to eat,
whether he is in pain, whether he has lost weight, or the degree of
progression of his "pyorrhea." Because he has not stated the degree of
his impairment or shown the objective necessity for dentures, he has not
carried his burden of alleging either a serious medical need or deliberate
indifference on the part of the prison dentists.
And even if he amends his complaint to cure these deficiencies, his
claims against Ditslenr, Henry, Frazier, Mickens, and Kennedy are
nevertheless subject to dismissal. Cynthia Ditslenr is never mentioned
in the body of the complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)
requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The purpose of this
rule is "to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests." Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

As Eunice

has failed to provide fair notice of the nature of his claim against Ditslenr,

5

she should be dismissed.
Eunice's claims against Warden Henry, Warden Frazier, Warden
Mickens, and Kathie Kennedy appear to be premised upon their positions
as supervisors at the prison. Claims brought pursuant to § 1983,
however, cannot be based upon theories of vicarious liability or respondeat

superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); Polk County v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Monell v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S.
658, 691 (1978); Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999).
Rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate either that these supervisory
defendants directly participated in the alleged constitutional deprivations
or that there is some other causal connection between the acts or
omissions and the alleged constitutional deprivations.

Cottone v. Jenne,

326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667,
671 (11th Cir. 1990); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1998)
(per curiam). Liability cannot be premised upon a prison administrator's
mere reliance upon the medical judgment of the prison dentists. Eunice
has not alleged facts demonstrating that the warden or deputy wardens
had actual knowledge that the prison dentists were treating him

[1

inhumanely by refusing to provide him with dentures (rather than just
exercising their medical judgment that dentures were not needed).

See

Tittle v. Jefferson County Comm'n, 10 F.3d 1535, 1541-42 (11th Cir. 1994)
(Kravitch, J., concurring) (plaintiff must show that the supervisor's
knowledge amounted to deliberate indifference to the asserted harm or
risk, in that his knowledge was "so pervasive that the refusal to prevent
harm rises to the level of a custom or policy of depriving inmates of their
constitutional rights."); Weaver v. Toombs, 756 F. Supp. 335, 337 (W.D.
Mich. 1989), affd, 915 F.2d 1574 (6th Cir. 1990); see also Bellamy v.

Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, his claims
against Kennedy and the wardens fail.
The Court will permit Eunice 14 days to amend his complaint to
cure the deficiencies described above.
11-2

SO ORDERED this __ day of May, 2014.

'

UNITED
LMAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

7