Johannes v. Heyns et al

Filing 331

OPINION and ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Partial Relief from the Court's Class Certification Order 302 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (EPar)

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8303 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MELVIN BOWNES,
TIMOTHY BROWNELL,
JAMES GUNNELS, and
ANTHONY RICHARDSON,
on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated,

Case No. 14-cv-11691
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

Plaintiffs,
v.
HEIDI WASHINGTON and
JONG CHOI,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION SEEKING PARTIAL RELIEF FROM THE
COURT’S CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER [302]
In this case, thousands of prisoners claim that the Michigan Department of
Corrections provides them with constitutionally inadequate dental care. Over two
years ago, the Court certified several classes of prisoners, with each class challenging
a different aspect of the MDOC’s dental care. See generally Dearduff v. Washington,
330 F.R.D. 452 (E.D. Mich. 2019). One certified class, Class IIA, challenges the tools
the MDOC uses to diagnose periodontal disease. Another certified class, Class IIB,
challenges the adequacy of MDOC’s treatment of periodontal disease. In seeking class
certification, Plaintiffs wanted the Court to certify a class of all prisoners in the
MDOC’s custody—over 37,000 prisoners—and claimed that this Court could
productively adjudicate each of their Eighth Amendment claims at once. But, for

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8304 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 27

reasons explained in detail, the Court declined Plaintiffs’ request and limited both
Class IIA and Class IIB to a subset of MDOC prisoners. See Dearduff, 330 F.R.D. at
468–73.
After additional discovery, Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider its prior
ruling and expand Class IIA and Class IIB to include all prisoners in the MDOC’s
custody. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ request to expand
Class IIA but grant in part Plaintiffs’ request to expand Class IIB.

To better appreciate Plaintiffs’ request to expand the two previously certified
classes, it helps to know a bit about periodontal disease, how it is diagnosed, and how
it is treated.
“Periodontal disease is an inflammatory disease of the supporting tissues of
the teeth,” including the gums and periodontal ligament. (ECF No. 302-8,
PageID.7699.) The disease is progressive; the rate of progression depends on several
factors, including age, diabetes, and tobacco use. (ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7706.)
Under one classification system, a person can have healthy gums, gingivitis, early
periodontitis, moderate periodontitis, or advanced periodontitis. (See ECF No. 302-8,
PageID.7716 (equating Periodontal Screening and Recording scores with “gingivitis,”
“early,” “moderate,” and “advanced”); cf. ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7705 (using “Stage”
and “Grade” to classify disease).) On the less severe end of the spectrum are people
with healthy gums and gingivitis. Gingivitis “is a reversible inflammation of the soft

2

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8305 Filed 08/20/21 Page 3 of 27

tissue that does not result in the loss of periodontal structures.” (ECF No. 302-8,
PageID.7701.) As periodontal disease progresses, the supporting tissues of the tooth
begin to separate from the tooth forming pockets between the tooth and gums:

(ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7699.) Calculus (hardened plaque) and bacteria can collect
inside these pockets, and the bone surrounding the teeth can erode. (See ECF No.
302-8, PageID.7706.) If allowed to progress, periodontitis can result in tooth loos or
an abscess. (ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7718.) The severity of periodontal disease can
vary throughout the mouth; the structures supporting one or two teeth might be
suffering from say, advanced periodontitis, but the structures supporting other teeth
are only affected by gingivitis. (See ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7702 (describing method
of dividing the mouth into six parts and measuring periodontal health in each part);
ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7719 (indicating that periodontal treatment can be provided
for a single “quadrant” of the mouth); ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7970 (indicating that
dentist should specify areas of mouth requiring periodontal treatment).) Periodontitis
is common: approximately 45% of adults over age of 30 have some level of
periodontitis. (ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7698.) But “the prevalence of moderate to

3

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8306 Filed 08/20/21 Page 4 of 27

severe periodontal disease in correctional populations is higher than in the free
population.” (ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7701.)
Plaintiffs and one of their opinion witnesses, Jay Schulman, DMD, assert that
intraoral x-rays and periodontal probing are necessary to accurately diagnose
periodontal disease. Schulman says that extraoral images from a panoramic x-ray
lack the detail necessary to “diagnose caries [i.e., tooth decay] or document
periodontal bone loss”; in contrast, intraoral x-rays “provide a considerable amount
of information about the periodontium that cannot be obtained by any other noninvasive means.” (ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7703.) The second diagnostic tool,
periodontal probing, involves measuring pocket depth using a probe. (ECF No. 3028, PageID.7699–7700.) Probing not only helps determine the severity of periodontitis
for a particular area of the mouth, but also helps determine varying severity
throughout the mouth. (See ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7702.) Charting the pocket-depth
measurements permits periodontal disease to be monitored over time. (ECF No. 3028, PageID.7700.)
The treatment for periodontal disease depends on its severity. For gingivitis,
which is on the low end of the severity spectrum, instruction on proper oral hygiene
and a prophylaxis is often adequate treatment. (See ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7711.) A
prophylaxis or “prophy” is a dental cleaning and, according to Schulman, is distinct
from a “scaling and root planing,” which is a more involved procedure usually
requiring local anesthesia. (ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7719.) Schulman states that
scaling and root planing “is an appropriate treatment when there is loss of

4

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8307 Filed 08/20/21 Page 5 of 27

attachment [between periodontal tissues and the tooth] in early, moderate or
advanced periodontitis.” (ECF No. 315-11, PageID.8020; see also ECF No. 302-8,
PageID.7711.) Scaling includes scraping the tooth above and below the gum line
(inside the pockets) to remove calculus and bacteria. (See ECF No. 302-8,
PageID.7719–7720.) Root planing includes smoothing the root to give the soft tissues
a better chance of reattaching to the tooth. (See id.) According to Plaintiffs, in addition
to scaling and root planing, follow-up treatment may be necessary to effectively treat
periodontitis. (See ECF No. 315-9, PageID.8012.)

In 2019, this Court certified two classes relating to periodontal disease. See
Dearduff v. Washington, 330 F.R.D. 452, 460, 468–473 (E.D. Mich. 2019).
One class, Class IIA, claimed that the tools the Michigan Department of
Corrections used to diagnose periodontal disease were inadequate. See id. at 460.
When a prisoner enters into the MDOC system, an intake dental exam is performed.
During this intake exam, dentists use a prisoner’s oral health history, a visual
examination, and panoramic, i.e., extraoral, x-rays to determine the stage of a
prisoner’s periodontal disease. (See ECF No. 302-8, PageID.7712; ECF No. 242-8,
PageID.6527.) At later exams, the MDOC may take intraoral x-rays. (ECF No. 3159, PageID.7979.) Prisoners in Class IIA claimed (and still claim) that intraoral x-rays
and periodontal probing are necessary to accurately diagnose periodontal disease. See
Dearduff, 330 F.R.D. at 460; (ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7970). Class IIA claimed (and
still claims) that without intraoral x-rays and periodontal probing, they are at risk of

5

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8308 Filed 08/20/21 Page 6 of 27

having their periodontal disease underdiagnosed. See Dearduff, 330 F.R.D. at 460;
(ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7970). For instance, say Plaintiffs, without intraoral x-rays
and periodontal probing, an MDOC dentist might diagnose a prisoner with early
periodontitis when, in fact, the prisoner has moderate periodontitis. This
underdiagnosis leads to the lack of proper treatment which, in turn, leads to serious
harm under the Eighth Amendment, those in Class IIA argued. See Dearduff, 330
F.R.D. at 460. In this Court’s class-certification opinion, Class IIA was defined as
“[a]ll prisoners incarcerated in an MDOC correctional facility who have caries that
have reached the dentin or have early (or worse) periodontitis.” Id. (Dentin is bony
tissue of the tooth beneath the enamel.)
The Court also certified Class IIB, which claimed that the MDOC did not
adequately treat periodontal disease. Dearduff, 330 F.R.D. at 461. Plaintiffs wanted
this treatment class to include all prisoners in the MDOC’s custody. See id. at 459–
61. Although the MDOC had (and still has) a systemwide policy of not providing
periodontal services to a prisoner in his or her first two years in prison, see Michigan
Department

of

Corrections,

Policy

Directive

04.06.150

(May

2018),

https://perma.cc/S3Z8-SN4E, the Court found that there was an exception to this
policy for prisoners with more severe periodontitis, see Dearduff, 330 F.R.D. at 468.
In making that finding, the Court relied on a memorandum from MDOC Dental
Director Jong Choi and a proffer from Defendants indicating that prisoners with
“unstable” moderate periodontitis and advanced periodontitis were receiving
necessary periodontal treatment. Because Class IIB claimed that the MDOC was

6

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8309 Filed 08/20/21 Page 7 of 27

providing constitutionally inadequate periodontal treatment, the Court excluded
prisoners with unstable moderate periodontitis and advanced periodontitis from
Class IIB. See Dearduff, 330 F.R.D. at 461.

Plaintiffs have now filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) asking this Court to reconsider how it defined Class IIA and Class IIB.
Regarding Class IIA, Plaintiffs argue that all prisoners, including those with
healthy gums and gingivitis, need intraoral x-rays and periodontal probing for proper
diagnoses of their periodontal health. (ECF No. 315, PageID.7917–7918.) So, argue
Plaintiffs, Class IIA should be expanded to include those with healthy gums and
gingivitis, i.e., Class IIA should include all MDOC prisoners. (See id.)
Regarding Class IIB, Plaintiffs argue that dental science does not support a
distinction between “stable” and “unstable” moderate periodontitis and so the Court
was wrong to define Class IIB using the term “stable.” (ECF No. 302, PageID.7646–
7652; ECF No. 315, PageID.7909–7917.) Plaintiffs also claim that evidence collected
after this Court issued its class-certification opinion shows that prisoners with
periodontitis (including those with moderate or advanced periodontitis) are not being
provided scaling and root planing, a necessary treatment. (ECF No. 315,
PageID.7922.) So Plaintiff would like the Court to expand Class IIB to include all
MDOC prisoners. (Id.)

7

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8310 Filed 08/20/21 Page 8 of 27

Plaintiffs also ask this Court to find that Anthony Richardson, a named
plaintiff who represents Class IIA, can also represent Class IIB. (ECF No. 315,
PageID.7926.)

Often, not a whole lot needs to be said about the legal standard governing a
motion. But motions pursuant to Rule 54(b) asking a Court to reconsider a ruling
under Rule 23 are not garden variety. So the Court will say a bit more about the
standard governing Plaintiffs’ request for relief.
In substance, Plaintiffs ask this Court to reconsider an order that did not end
the case. Typically, that is the office of Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h).
But that rule gives the parties at most 14 days to file a motion for reconsideration,
and, here, Plaintiffs have sought reconsideration far beyond that timeframe (more on
this in a moment). Presumably for this reason, Plaintiffs have invoked Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(b).
Rule 54(b) also allows the Court to revise non-final orders. In states in relevant
part, “any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than
all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be
revised at any time before the entry of a judgment[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
“Traditionally, courts will find justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders
when there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available;
or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Rodriguez v.
Tennessee Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App’x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). For

8

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8311 Filed 08/20/21 Page 9 of 27

convenience, the Court will refer to these as the “traditional justifications for Rule
54(b) relief.”
According to Defendants, Plaintiffs “have not offered any new evidence that
would support this Court reconsidering its opinion and order.” (ECF No. 324,
PageID.8231.) But Plaintiffs say, “At the time of this Court’s ruling on the class
certification motion, Plaintiffs were still engaged in discovery and, most importantly,
it had not yet received 100 dental records of class members for review.” (ECF No. 307,
PageID.7810.)
At the outset, the Court does question the timing of Plaintiffs’ motion and the
manner in which they collected evidence to support it. Even setting aside the fact that
Plaintiffs filed this case seven years ago, this Court issued its class-certification
opinion over two years ago, in February 2019. Yet Plaintiffs’ current Rule 54(b)
motion was not filed until September 2020—18 months after that opinion issued. And
even then, Plaintiffs’ motion was not supported in the way it is now. In June 2021—
two years after this Court’s certification opinion—Plaintiffs filed a supplement to
their Rule 54(b) motion that included significant, additional evidence supporting
expansion of Class IIA and Class IIB. (ECF No. 315.)
In this vein, the Court is compelled to comment on the briefing associated with
Plaintiffs’ motion to expand Class IIA and Class IIB. The initial motion was 19 pages
(ECF No. 302) and then Plaintiffs filed an eight-page reply brief (ECF No. 307).
Plaintiffs supplemental brief (filed over eight months after their motion) is another
27 pages. Not only does 27 pages exceed the page limits in the Local Rules, the

9

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8312 Filed 08/20/21 Page 10 of 27

supplemental brief contains many redundant statements. Moreover, Plaintiffs now
seek leave to file a nine-page reply to Defendants’ response to their supplemental
brief (which would bring Plaintiffs’ total briefing on three limited issues to 63 pages).
(ECF No. 315.) Not only that, Plaintiffs’ request to file a reply has spawned briefing
about briefing. (See ECF Nos. 328, 329.) The Court urges all parties to think carefully
about their arguments and to distill them down to their essential points. Although
the Court would be justified in denying Plaintiffs’ request to file a reply, because its
content does not alter the Court’s decision, the motion is granted.
Having addressed the briefing, the Court returns to the proper legal standard.
Plaintiffs ask this Court to expand two previously certified classes and to make
Richardson a class representative of one class. Because modifying class definitions is
almost the entirety of the relief Plaintiffs seek, the Court does not believe that
Plaintiffs must satisfy the traditional justifications for Rule 54(b) relief. As the Sixth
Circuit has explained, “district courts have broad discretion to modify class
definitions, so the district court’s multiple amendments merely showed that the court
took seriously its obligation to make appropriate adjustments to the class definition
as the litigation progressed.” Powers v. Hamilton Cty. Pub. Def. Comm’n, 501 F.3d
592, 619 (6th Cir. 2007). In fact, Rule 23(c)(1)(C), rather than Rule 54(b), is the
preferred vehicle for Plaintiffs’ motion: “An order that grants or denies class
certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(1)(C); see also Richardson v. Byrd, 709 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1983) (“Under
Rule 23 the district court is charged with the duty of monitoring its class decisions in

10

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8313 Filed 08/20/21 Page 11 of 27

light of the evidentiary development of the case. The district judge must define,
redefine, subclass, and decertify as appropriate in response to the progression of the
case from assertion to facts.”).
Accordingly, the Court will assess Plaintiffs’ request for expansion of Class IIA
and Class IIB under Rule 23(c)(1)(C). But given that this case is now seven years old,
and that Plaintiffs had plenty of opportunity to collect evidence for their proposed
classes, the Court will not consider any further motions by Plaintiffs to alter the scope
of the classes or alter the legal claims that each class pursues.

The Court starts with Plaintiffs’ request to expand Class IIA, then addresses
Plaintiffs’ like request for Class IIB.

Before examining the specifics of Plaintiffs’ request to expand Class IIA, the
Court clarifies the scope of Class IIA as currently defined. In stating that Class IIA
consisted of all prisoners “who have caries that have reached the dentin or have early
(or worse) periodontitis,” the Court perhaps left the scope of Class IIA susceptible to
two interpretations. One is that Class IIA only includes prisoners that MDOC
dentists—without intraoral x-rays or periodontal probing—have diagnosed as having
early, moderate, or advanced periodontitis (or caries that have reached the dentin).
The other interpretation is that the class includes all prisoners who—accurately
diagnosed—have early, moderate, or advanced periodontitis (or caries that have
reached the dentin). The Court now makes clear that this second interpretation of

11

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8314 Filed 08/20/21 Page 12 of 27

Class IIA is the proper one. And to the extent that the Court’s clarification raises a
question about which prisoners are in Class IIA (after all, the claim is that the MDOC
often underdiagnoses periodontal disease), the Court notes that all the certified
classes in this case are of the Rule 23(b)(2) variety, and there is no ascertainably
requirement associated with Rule 23(b)(2) classes. See Cole v. City of Memphis, 839
F.3d 530, 540, 542 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Because the focus in a (b)(2) class is more heavily
placed on the nature of the remedy sought, and because a remedy obtained by one
member will naturally affect the others, the identities of individual class members
are less critical in a (b)(2) action than in a (b)(3) action.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
With that clarification, the Court turns to Plaintiffs’ request to expand
Class IIA. The members of Class IIA claim that to accurately diagnose periodontal
disease, the MDOC needs to use intraoral x-rays and periodontal probing. But,
according to Plaintiffs, it is not just prisoners with early, moderate, or advanced
periodontitis that require intraoral x-rays and periodontal probing—it is all
prisoners. Plaintiffs assert, “Dentists use periodontal probing and charting to screen
all patients, whether healthy or periodontally involved to establish a baseline
measurement for future recordings and to confirm health status.” (ECF No. 315,
PageID.7918.) “Thus,” say Plaintiffs “all patients should be probed and charted, not
just early or worse periodontal patients, to prevent progression of further disease and
keep an accurate reliable record of any possible disease progression over time and to

12

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8315 Filed 08/20/21 Page 13 of 27

determine presence or absence of disease common to all.” (Id.) So Plaintiffs propose
that this Court expand Class IIA to include all prisoners.
Plaintiffs’ argument focuses heavily on what they believe is necessary
healthcare (intraoral x-rays and probing). But Plaintiffs do not focus enough on what
is necessary for class certification. Rather than asking what people need for good
dental health, the more pertinent question right now is whether the legal claims of a
class consisting of every MDOC prisoner—over 37,000 people with varying
periodontal health—can be productively litigated at once.
Rule 23 helps answer that question. Although commonality and typicality
under Rule 23 do not require that all class members have identical legal claims, they
do require that the overwhelming majority of class members’ legal claims be similar
in material ways. In particular, class members’ “claims must depend upon a common
contention . . . [that is] capable of classwide resolution.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). In other words, the Court must be able to “resolve
an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the [class members’] claims in
one stroke.” Id.; see also Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 397 (6th Cir.
1998) (“What we are looking for is a common issue the resolution of which will
advance the litigation.”).
Here, if Class IIA were expanded to include prisoners with healthy gums, the
Court would not be able to resolve an issue that substantially advances the claims of
all (or, at least, an overwhelming majority of) class members “in one stroke.” To
succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that a prison

13

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8316 Filed 08/20/21 Page 14 of 27

healthcare provider was “deliberately indifferent” to his or her “serious medical
need[.]” Richmond v. Huq, 885 F.3d 928, 937 (6th Cir. 2018). And deliberate
indifference means that the MDOC policymaker “subjectively perceived facts from
which to infer substantial risk to the prisoner, that he did in fact draw the inference,
and that he then disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate
it.” Rhinehart v. Scutt, 894 F.3d 721, 738 (6th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks
omitted). For prisoners with healthy gums, whom Plaintiffs wish to include in Class
IIA, the lack of intraoral x-rays and probing does not deprive them of immediately
needed treatment. But prisoners with early periodontitis, who are also members of
Class IIA, have an immediate need for treatment (e.g., scaling and root planing). So
the failure to use intraoral x-rays and probing affects these two groups of prisoners
quite differently: those with healthy gums want the two diagnostic tools to establish
an accurate baseline of periodontal health; but those with early periodontitis would
like the two diagnostic tools so they can be accurately diagnosed for immediate
treatment. So the “medical need” is materially different. Moreover, it is likely that
the MDOC policymaker’s subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to the two groups
of prisoners is different. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that analyzing the Eighth
Amendment claim of a prisoner with healthy gums will materially advance the
resolution of an Eighth Amendment claim brought by a prisoner with early
periodontitis, or vice versa.
Next consider Plaintiffs’ proposal to expand Class IIA to include prisoners with
gingivitis. True, if Plaintiffs’ are correct that intraoral x-rays and probing are

14

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8317 Filed 08/20/21 Page 15 of 27

necessary to accurately diagnose periodontal disease, then prisoners with gingivitis
and prisoners with periodontitis are both at risk of underdiagnosis. But gingivitis
may not be a “serious medical need” in the Eighth Amendment sense whereas
periodontitis may be. And even if both conditions satisfy the objective element of an
Eighth Amendment claim, consider the subjective element. MDOC Dental Director
Choi and MDOC Director Washington may appreciate that a prisoner with
periodontitis has a serious need for treatment while they may not appreciate that a
prisoner with gingivitis has a serious need for treatment. Or more succinctly: it may
well be that MDOC policymakers perceive the harm from underdiagnosed gingivitis
as much less severe than the harm from underdiagnosed periodontitis.
The Court repeatedly used “may” in the prior paragraph. And it is true that
the Court has only identified potential differences in the Eighth Amendment claims
brought by those with gingivitis and those with periodontitis. But it is “the party
seeking class certification”—not the Court—“that bears the burden of affirmatively
demonstrating compliance with Rule 23.” Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. ASD
Specialty Healthcare, Inc., 863 F.3d 460, 466–67 (6th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
marks and alterations omitted). Yet, in their three principal briefs (spanning 54
pages), Plaintiffs make no attempt to address Rule 23’s requirements or Wal-Mart.
(See generally ECF No. 302, 307, 315.) True, the phrase “one stroke” makes an
appearance in Plaintiffs’ fourth brief (which they needed leave to file). But even then
the discussion is both cursory and not on point. (See ECF No. 325-1, PageID.8279.)
Plaintiffs simply assert that the Court can craft a remedy that cures the harm in “one

15

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8318 Filed 08/20/21 Page 16 of 27

stroke.” (Id.) But that is not what Rule 23 commonality demands: it must be that an
issue shared among the claims of the thousands of prisoners in Class IIA can be
resolved at once. See Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350.
In short, Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court that if Class IIA were to
include all prisoners, the Court would be able to “resolve an issue that is central to
the validity of each one of the [members’] claims in one stroke.” See Wal-Mart, 564
U.S. at 350. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion, insofar as it asks the Court to expand
Class IIA, will be denied.

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to expand Class IIB to include all MDOC
prisoners.
1.
To fully appreciate Plaintiffs’ request, some additional background is
necessary.
As noted, the Court previously defined Class IIB as follows: “All prisoners
incarcerated in an MDOC correctional facility with healthy gums, gingivitis, early
periodontitis, and stable moderate periodontitis.” Dearduff v. Washington, 330 F.R.D.
452, 472 (E.D. Mich. 2019). The Court did not include prisoners with more severe
periodontitis—i.e., “unstable” moderate periodontitis or advanced periodontitis—in
Class IIB. The Court excluded these prisoners from the class because Defendants
indicated that MDOC was providing them with periodontal treatment, and the
members of Class IIB claimed that the MDOC was not providing prisoners

16

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8319 Filed 08/20/21 Page 17 of 27

periodontal treatment (or, at least, not providing adequate periodontal treatment).
Id. at 469.
The Court’s determination that the MDOC provided those with unstable
moderate periodontitis and advanced periodontitis with treatment was based on a
memorandum drafted by MDOC Dental Director Jong Choi and a proffer Defendants
made in their brief opposing class certification. Choi’s memo stated that because
periodontitis progressed slowly, “there is no harm done by not specifically treating,
beyond self-care, early stage periodontal conditions during the first two years of
incarceration.” (ECF No. 246-6, PageID.7050.) “Similarly,” Choi continued, “moderate
periodontitis, if stable with self-care, will not require intervening dental care in the
first two years of incarceration to prevent the condition from becoming advanced.”
(Id. (emphasis added).) But, said Choi, “unstable moderate periodontal condition
should be identified for stabilization care sufficient to attempt to change the condition
from unstable to stable.” (Id. (emphasis added).) As for advanced periodontitis, Choi’s
memo stated that these prisoners had “experienced too much bone loss to save the
affected tooth or teeth,” and so extraction was recommended to prevent infection. (Id.)
In addition to Choi’s memo, in opposing class certification, Defendants made the
following proffer in their brief: “Within the range of identifiable stages of
periodontitis, as determined by degree of bone loss, those with moderate stage
periodontitis whose condition is unstable will receive stabilization referral for
periodontal treatment, as appropriate, including debridement and/or root planing

17

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8320 Filed 08/20/21 Page 18 of 27

and scaling, with follow up sufficient to stabilize the condition.” (ECF No. 246,
PageID.6977 (emphasis added).)
Given Choi’s memo and the proffer by Defendants’ counsel, the Court was “not
persuaded that the MDOC has a policy or systemwide practice of not providing
appropriate treatment for those with moderate or advanced periodontal disease.”
Dearduff, 330 F.R.D. at 469. So the Court excluded prisoners with unstable moderate
periodontitis or advanced periodontitis from Class IIB. But the Court added,
“[s]hould Plaintiffs prove that Defendants’ claim about the provision of root planing
and scaling (with follow-up care) is not accurate, the Court will revisit this issue.” Id.
2.
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to revisit this issue.
But one of Plaintiffs’ arguments places too much weight on the Court’s word
choice and does not address the Court’s more fundamental point. Plaintiffs spend a
lot of pages attempting to prove that the distinction between “unstable” and “stable”
moderate periodontitis is untenable. (ECF No. 302, PageID.7646–7652; ECF No. 315,
PageID.7909–7917.) But even if Choi was wrong about the stability of moderate
periodontitis (and thus the Court was wrong to use the word “stable” to define Class
IIB), the more fundamental question is whether MDOC adequately treats prisoners
with more severe cases of periodontitis. If so, then these prisoners should not be part
of Class IIB. After all, Class IIB claims that MDOC inadequately treats periodontal
disease. (And so much so, that it is an Eighth Amendment violation.)

18

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8321 Filed 08/20/21 Page 19 of 27

Apart from attacking the “stable” and “unstable” distinction, Plaintiffs ask the
Court to expand Class IIB based on evidence discovered after class certification. They
argue that this evidence shows that, contrary to Choi’s memo and Defendants’ proffer,
MDOC prisoners with periodontitis do not receive scaling or root planing and
therefore they still need that relief. (See ECF No. 315, PageID.7919–7922.) After the
Court’s certification opinion, it appears that Schulman (one of Plaintiffs’ opinion
witnesses) randomly selected and reviewed the dental charts of 100 prisoners who
were on a wait list for a filling. (See ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7989.) (The Court says
“it appears” that Shulman randomly selected 100 dental charts because his
description of his selection methodology is not clear to the Court. (ECF No. 302-8,
PageID.7721.)) Schulman’s review of the 100 dental charts revealed that 61 of the
prisoners had been diagnosed with early, moderate, or advanced periodontal disease.
(ECF No. 315-11, PageID.8020.) And, based on notations in the charts, Schulman
concluded that MDOC dentists only ever prescribed these 61 prisoners a prophy, i.e.,
a cleaning. (Id.) So based on the dental charts, it would seem that the MDOC does
not provide prisoners with early, moderate, or advanced periodontitis with a scaling
and root planing. And this would be contrary to Choi’s memo and Defendants’ proffer
at class certification.
But the dental charts do not tell the whole story; other evidence suggests that
some prisoners receive a scaling and root planing even if their dental charts only state
“prophy.” For one, Dental Director Choi indicated that the terms “prophy” and “root
planing and scaling” were, at least at one point during his tenure at MDOC,

19

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8322 Filed 08/20/21 Page 20 of 27

“interchangeably used.” (ECF No. 315-5, PageID.7951.) And Dalton Sanders, an
MDOC dentist, testified that “root planing and scaling is part of adult prophylaxis if
needed.” (ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7986.) Similarly, Gloria Smith, another MDOC
dentist, indicated that if she ordered a cleaning known as a “debridement,” her
hygienist would know that includes root planing and scaling. (ECF No. 307-4,
PageID.7828.) Indeed, one MDOC hygienist testified that “a prophylaxis is a
debridement, a scaling and root planing, and a rubber cup polish,” and another
MDOC hygienist testified that she provides “scaling and root planing, if it’s
necessary.” (ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7986.) Thus, the absence of a notation for scaling
and root planing on the dental charts Shulman reviewed does not conclusively
establish that the MDOC does not provide prisoners with periodontitis with scaling
and root planing. Indeed, Schulman opines that “the [MDOC] dentist prescribes
‘prophy’ and the dental hygienist decides whether to perform a periodontal scaling or
scaling and root planing sua sponte.” (ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7970.)
Granting that some prisoners who are prescribed a “prophy” nonetheless
receive the necessary scaling and root planing, the Court is persuaded, for purposes
of class certification, that there are a substantial number of prisoners who have early,
moderate, or advanced periodontitis and who are not receiving scaling and root
planing. To start, the MDOC undoubtedly employs more hygienists than the few who
have testified that they provide scaling and root planing when a dentist orders a
prophy. So the hygienists’ testimony does not establish that the MDOC consistently
provides scaling and root planing to prisoners with periodontitis. Second, Schulman

20

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8323 Filed 08/20/21 Page 21 of 27

says that anesthesia is generally used to perform scaling and root planing, yet, “none
of the randomly selected records [he] reviewed had documented codes [for anesthesia]
in conjunction with a prophylaxis.” (ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7985; but see ECF No.
315-9, PageID.8011 (noting that anesthesia was “rarely” documented).) As such,
Schulman says it “strains credulity” that the notation of a “prophy” on the dental
charts could be referring to a scaling and root planing. (ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7985.)
Third, there is evidence that under Michigan law, dentists must prescribe scaling and
root planing before a hygienist can provide that treatment. Dental Director Choi
acknowledged that it would violate Michigan law for a hygienist to perform root
planing and scaling when a dentist only orders a prophy. (ECF No. 315-5,
PageID.7952.) And another of Plaintiffs’ opinion witnesses, Stephen Harrel, DDS,
testified that a “dentist needs to make the diagnosis and then treatment plan for root
planing and scaling” and that “hygienists should not do that on their own.” (ECF No.
315-10, PageID.8017.) If a hygienist cannot lawfully provide scaling and root planing
until a dentist orders that procedure, that would suggest that MDOC hygienists do
not consistently perform a scaling and root planing when a dentist orders a prophy.
To sum up so far, Plaintiffs have shown that the MDOC has a systemwide
practice of only prescribing a “prophy” for prisoners with early, moderate, or advanced
periodontitis. And while some MDOC hygienists perform a scaling and root planing
when only a prophy is ordered, the Court is not now persuaded that is consistently
the case. Accordingly—for purposes of class certification—the Court finds that a
significant number of MDOC prisoners with early, moderate, or advanced

21

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8324 Filed 08/20/21 Page 22 of 27

periodontitis are not receiving necessary scaling and root planing and necessary
follow-up care.
3.
The Court will accommodate this new finding by redefining Class IIB and
creating a new class for prisoners not receiving scaling and root planing. Class IIB
will be redefined as follows: “All prisoners incarcerated in an MDOC correctional
facility with healthy gums or gingivitis.” And the new class, Class IIC, will be defined
as follows: “All prisoners incarcerated in an MDOC correctional facility with early,
moderate, or advanced periodontitis who have not received all necessary scaling and
root planing and follow-up treatment.”
Both these classes satisfy Rule 23’s requirements for certification. Start with
reconstituted Class IIB. This class has shrunk, and so the diversity in dental health
among members of Class IIB is now less than before. It follows that the Eighth
Amendment claims of those in Class IIB are now more similar than before: there is
less diversity in both the type of harm and risk of harm from inadequate periodontal
treatment. So, with one exception, the analysis this Court provided in its classcertification opinion suffices to show that reconstituted Class IIB meets Rule 23’s
demands. See Dearduff, 330 F.R.D. at 469–70.
The one exception: Rule 23(a)(4)’s requirement that “the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” The Court previously
found that Melvin Bownes could represent Class IIB. See Dearduff, 330 F.R.D. at 470.
Although the Court does not have updated dental records for Bownes, Bownes’

22

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8325 Filed 08/20/21 Page 23 of 27

periodontal disease appears to be more severe than gingivitis. (See ECF No. 315-9,
PageID.8007.) But, as redefined, Class IIB consists of those prisoners with healthy
gums and gingivitis. So Bownes might not be a proper representative of redefined
Class IIB. Zehentbauer Fam. Land, LP v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 935 F.3d 496, 503
(6th Cir. 2019) (“[A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the
same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Fortunately for Plaintiffs, another named plaintiff in this case, Anthony
Richardson, can also represent redefined Class IIB. Although the Court also does not
have recent dental records for Richardson, as of April 2019, Richardson was
diagnosed with “generalized gingivitis.” (ECF No. 315-9, PageID.8006.) True, on
earlier occasions, Richardson, like Bownes, was diagnosed with more severe
periodontal disease. But as this Court currently understands periodontal disease, it
may be possible to have gingivitis in one area of the mouth and periodontitis in
another. (See ECF No. 315-2, PageID.7931 (MDOC dentist indicating that
periodontal disease can be “localized” to a particular area of the mouth); ECF No. 3159, PageID.7972 (“Periodontal lesions may be generalized or localized in a quadrant or
tooth.”); ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7970 (indicating that a treatment plan should specify
the areas of the mouth requiring scaling and root planing).) Indeed, it may be that
gingivitis, broadly defined as “inflammation of the soft tissue” (ECF No. 302-8,
PageID.7701), is present around an area of the mouth with periodontitis. Accordingly,

23

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8326 Filed 08/20/21 Page 24 of 27

on the record now before the Court, Richardson is an adequate representative for
Class IIB.
Class IIC also meets Rule 23’s requirements. Each prisoner in Class IIC
asserts the same medical need—scaling and root planing and follow-up care—and
each faces a similar risk of similar harm if they are not provided that treatment. True,
the summary-judgment or trial record might show that those with say, advanced
periodontitis have a “serious medical need” under the Eighth Amendment while those
with say, early periodontitis do not. Or the proofs might ultimately show that Dental
Director Choi and Director Washington appreciate that prisoners with advanced
periodontitis are at substantial risk of harm without scaling and root planing but do
not have that same appreciation for prisoners with early periodontitis. So it is
possible that the Eighth Amendment claims of those in Class IIC will not all rise and
fall together. But Schulman has opined that even those with early periodontitis
should receive a scaling and root planing (ECF No. 315-9, PageID.7972) and it
appears that by early periodontitis, there is already some bone loss (ECF No. 315-9,
PageID.7983). So, for now, the Court believes that those in Class IIC face similar
enough risk of similar enough harm that at least one central issue underlying all of
their Eighth Amendment claims can be resolved in “one stroke.”
As for class representatives, Richardson will also adequately represent Class
IIC. It is true that in 2012 and 2014, Richardson received scaling (and possibly root
planing) for his periodontal disease. (ECF No. 315-9, PageID.8006.) But in October
2018, Richardson still had moderate periodontitis and it is not at all clear that he

24

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8327 Filed 08/20/21 Page 25 of 27

continued to receive scaling and root planing. (See id.) (As noted above, it is not
necessarily inconsistent that Richardson has both periodontitis and gingivitis.) Thus,
absent further information, the Court believes Richardson can represent Class IIC.
* * *
In sum, Plaintiffs have persuaded the Court at this stage of the litigation that
a substantial number of prisoners with early, moderate, or advanced periodontitis do
not receive scaling and root planing and the associated follow-up care. So the Court
has created Class IIC to allow these prisoners to pursue class-wide relief.

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to make Richardson a representative of formerly
defined Class IIB. This request is moot in light of the Court deeming Richardson a
representative of redefined Class IIB and new Class IIC.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for partial relief from the Court’s
certification order (ECF No. 302) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Below is an updated chart summarizing the certified classes. The parties should note
the Court’s articulation of the legal claims of Class IIA, Class IIB, and Class IIC.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2021
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8328 Filed 08/20/21 Page 26 of 27

Class

Definition

Proposed Class I
(Not Certified)

All prisoners who have less
than
24
months
of
uninterrupted incarceration
within
an
MDOC
correctional facility starting
from the prisoner’s first day
at the reception center
All prisoners incarcerated in
an
MDOC
correctional
facility who have caries that
have reached the dentin or
have early (or worse)
periodontitis

Class IIA

Class IIB

Legal Claim

Each class member claims that the
MDOC’s requirement that he or she be
incarcerated for two years before
becoming eligible for routine dental care
exposes him or her to a substantial risk
of serious harm of which Defendants are
aware
Each class member claims that he or she
has a serious medical need (caries that
have reached the dentin or early,
moderate, or advanced periodontitis),
and that MDOC’s policy of not using
intraoral x-rays and periodontal probing
amounts to deliberate indifference to his
or her serious medical need.
All prisoners incarcerated in Each class member claims that he or she
an
MDOC
correctional has a serious medical need (e.g., a
facility with healthy gums or baseline measurement or gingivitis),
gingivitis
and that MDOC’s policy of treating that
serious medical need (e.g., not obtaining
a baseline measurement and not
providing a prophylaxis until two years
in prison) amounts to deliberate
indifference.

Representative
(if certified)

Melvin
Bownes
and
Anthony
Richardson

Melvin
Bownes
and
Anthony
Richardson

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 331, PageID.8329 Filed 08/20/21 Page 27 of 27

Class
Class IIC

Definition

All prisoners incarcerated in
an
MDOC
correctional
facility with early, moderate,
or advanced periodontitis
who have not received all
necessary scaling and root
planing
and
follow-up
treatment
Class III
All prisoners incarcerated in
an
MDOC
correctional
facility who have requested
dentures and who satisfy the
criteria for dentures in
Sections 15 and 16 of
Chapter VI of the MDOC’s
Dental Services Manual1
Proposed Class IVA All prisoners on the Routine
(Not Certified)
Dental Appointment List

Class IVB

Legal Claim

Representative
(if certified)
Each class member claims that he or she Anthony
has
a
serious
medical
need Richardson
(periodontitis), and that MDOC’s policy
of not providing treatment (scaling and
root planing and follow-up treatment)
amounts to deliberate indifference.
Each class member claims that the time James Gunnels
it takes for the MDOC to provide
dentures exposes him or her to serious
harm or, at least, a substantial risk of
serious harm, of which Defendants are
aware

Each class member claims that the time
it takes the MDOC to provide him or her
with routine care (e.g., five months)
exposes him or her to a substantial risk
of serious harm
All prisoners that the MDOC Each class member claims that the time Timothy Brownell
has identified as waiting for it takes the MDOC to provide him or her
urgent dental services
with urgent care (e.g., three days) causes
him or her serious harm or, at least,
exposes him or her to a substantial risk
of serious harm

As noted in the class certification opinion, Dearduff v. Washington, 330 F.R.D. 452, 474 n.3 (E.D. Mich. 2019),
this class may be subject to redefinition or sub-classing.
1

27