Dorsey v. Taylor

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable John W. Darrah on 10/14/2015. Mailed notice(sxw, )

>c

f .- i
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Carl E. Dorsey (#B-62990),

)
)

Plaintiff,

)

)
v.

Case No. 15 C 0936

)

)
Brenda Taylor,

Judge John W. Darrah

)
)
Defendant.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Carl E. Dorsey, a f,ormer inmate at Cook County Jail, brought this pro se civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. $ L983, alleging that dental personnel at the jail were deliberately
I

indifferent to his serious medical needs. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Taylor's
motion to dismiss portions of Dorsey's complaint

[20].

For the following reasons, the motion is

granted.

BACKGROUND
Dorsey alleged in his complaint that on August 6,2nL4, he saw Defendant Taylor, a jail
dentist, to replace a

filling.

(Dkt. No. 8, Comp. at

4.)

For reasons that are unclear in the

complaint, Taylor was unable to refill the tooth, left Dorsey's nerve exposed, and refused to
prescribe pain medication.

(ld.) According

to Dorsey, his nerve was left exposed for a "couple

of weeks" before Taylor's supervisor replaced the

filling.

(Id. at a-5.)

Dorsey also alleges that on September 26, 2014, he began requesting to be seen for

toothache. (Id. at

5.) A nurse examined Dorsey on January 9,20L5,

scheduled to be seen by a dentist in March

20L5. (1d..)

Dorsey's complaint alleging that he is "in pain no

a

and told him he was

On January 28,2015, the Court received

help!" (Id.) Dorsey appears to attribute

delay in his appointment with the dentist to his having filed a grievance against

Taylor. (ld.)

the

L

On March 16,201.5, the Court screened Dorsey's complaint under 28 U.S.C. $ 19L54 and

allowed a claim to proceed against Taylor arising from Plaintiff's allegation that Taylor failed to

fill

Dorsey's tooth on August 6, z1!4,leaving a nerve exposed. The Court did not address

Plaintiff's allegations concerning his subsequent toothache.
Before the Court is Taylor's motion to dismiss those portions of Dorsey's complaint that the

Court did not address in its March L6,20L5 screening order.

ANALYSIS
A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint.
v.

Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge

No,.

See

Hallinan

7,570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). Under Rule

8(a)(2), a complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to

relief."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement under Rule

8(a)(2) must "give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). Under

the

federal notice pleading standards, a plaintiff s "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right

to relief above the speculative level."

Id. Put differently, a "complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

Iqbal,556 U.S. 662,678 (2009) (quoting Twombly,550 U.S.

face."' Ashcroft

v.

at 570).

"In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint under the plausibility standard, [courts] accept
the well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true." Alam v, Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d 662,
665-66 (7th Cir. 2OL3). Courts also construe

Pardus,551 U.S. 89,94 (2007) (per curiam).

pro se complaints liberally. See Ericl<son v.

"Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment when they display 'deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners."'
Greeno v. Daley,414 F.3d 645,652 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, L04

(I976)); Cowtry of Sacramento v. Lewis,523 U.S. 833, 849-50 (1998) (explaining that deliberate
indifference claims against jail personnel arise under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the
Eighth Amendment but are analyzed under a similar standard). The Seventh Circuit has indicated

that a dental condition may constitute a serious medical need for purposes of a claim tnder 42
U.S.C. g 1983, see Boardv. Farnham,394 F.3d 469,480 (7th Cir. 2005), but to sustain a claim that
a

defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, a plaintiff must be able

to show that his need was objectively serious and that the defendant acted with a deliberate
indifference to that need, Greeno, 4L4 F.3d at 653.

Dorsey's claim concerning his January 2015 toothache fails on both prongs

of

the

deliberate indifference analysis. First, the facts alleged by Dorsey do not show that he suffered

from an objectively serious dental condition inJanuary 2015. Aserious medical.need does not
include "every ache and pain or medically recognized condition involving some discomfort."
Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d L364, L372 (7th Cir. 1997). Rather,

it is "one that has been

diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a layperson

would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." Id. at1373. Dorsey's allegation
that he suffered from a "toothache" satisfies neither of these criteria.

Dorsey also alleged no facts from which it may be inferred that Taylor was deliberately
indifferent to his need for treatment of his January 2015 toothache. The facts alleged by Dorsey
show only that he was scheduled for a dental appointment concerning his toothache in January

2015, and at that time, the nurse who performed the initial examination scheduled Dorsey for a

follow-up appointment with the dentist approximately two months later. Dorsey then filed this
federal lawsuit before his appointment with the dentist took place. Dorsey appears to believe that

Taylor was responsible for his failure to receive an appointment with the dentist sooner, but
unsupported conclusions and speculation are insufficient to support a federal cause of action. See

Twombly,550 U.S. at 555 ("Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative

level[.]") Dorsey's allegations therefore do not state

a claim against Taylor arising

from treatment of his January 2015 toothache.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss portions of Plaintiff's complaint [20]

is

granted. Any claims arising from Dorsey's January 2015 toothache are dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim. Because Dorsey failed to state a claim concerning his
January 2015 toothache, the Court need not reach Taylor's argument that Dorsey failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies concerning these claims.

Date:

lD-/4- /{-

lsl