Jackson v. Betz et al

Filing 56

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 42) is GRANTED; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Paul A. Magnuson on 11/26/2024. (MGMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ronnie Jackson,

Civ. No. 23-3624 (PAM/DJF)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

v.
James Betz, and Jennifer Shaft,
sued in their individual capacities,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants James Betz and Jennifer Shaft’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 42.) For the following reasons, the
Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ronnie Jackson brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that
Defendants Dr. James Betz, a dentist, and Jennifer Shaft, a Health Service
Administrator, violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment through deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while
he was incarcerated at the Hennepin County Jail. 1 (See generally Am. Compl. (Docket
No. 17).) Jackson’s medical intake record from September 1, 2023, indicates that he

Jackson alleges an Eighth Amendment violation, but the Court liberally
construes a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e); Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007). As explained below, because Jackson was a pretrial detainee during
the relevant time period, his claim is brought under the Fourteenth Amendment claim,
rather than the Eighth Amendment.
1

described pain in his left cheek emanating from a tooth. (Med. Rec. (Docket No. 46)
Ex. A. at 6.) 2 On September 7, 2023, Jackson saw a nurse, but did not indicate a dental
concern at that visit. (Med. Rec. at 18–20.) However, during a visit with a nurse
practitioner on September 12, 2023, Jackson complained of tooth pain, and was given
ibuprofen and oral gel. (Am. Compl. ¶ 8; Med. Rec. at 20.) The nurse practitioner also
added Jackson to the list to see a dentist. (Id.) The following week, Jackson saw a
nurse practitioner, and reported ongoing dental issues. (Med. Rec. at 40.) The nurse
practitioner prescribed an antibiotic and instructed Jackson to contact medical if he had
new or worsening symptoms. (Id.)

On September 23, 2023, Jackson saw a nurse

practitioner due to stomach pain—he did not indicate tooth discomfort. (Id. at 41.)
On October 4, 2023, Jackson saw Dr. Betz. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13; Med. Rec. at 50–
51.) The medical record from this visit indicates that Jackson reported tooth pain and
sensitivity related to tooth #19, and that Dr. Betz’s examination revealed broken teeth
and decay. (Med. Rec. at 51.) Dr. Betz advised Jackson of his treatment options to
either fill the tooth or extract it. (Id.) Jackson opted to fill the tooth with temporary
restoration, and Dr. Betz instructed him to have a final restoration completed after
leaving the facility. (Id.) At the visit, Jackson stated that his tooth already felt better
and that it was no longer causing pain when he spoke or breathed. (Id.) Dr. Betz
instructed Jackson to call the clinic if his pain increased or if swelling occurred. (Id.)

Page cites to Exhibit A refer to the ECF page number, as the document is not
continuously paginated.
2

2

Following the appointment with Dr. Betz, Jackson’s medical record reflects that
he had thirteen subsequent healthcare visits through the duration of his incarceration at
the facility. (Id. at 54, 56, 58–64, 66–67, 68, 70–76, 78–79, 80, 82, 88–94, 96, 110,
114, 116, 118, 120–27, 130.) There is no indication that Jackson reported a dental issue
at any of those appointments.
Defendants move for summary judgment as to Jackson’s sole claim of deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs.
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is proper if there are no disputed issues of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The
Court must view the evidence and inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S.
650, 660 (2014). The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A party opposing a properly
supported motion for summary judgment may not rest on mere allegations or denials
but must set forth specific facts in the record showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). A dispute is genuine
if the evidence could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving
party. Id. at 248.
“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he was
deprived of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States and
3

that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.”
Alexander v. Hedback, 718 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Lind v. Midland
Funding, L.L.C., 688 F.3d 402, 405 (8th Cir. 2012)); see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the
Eighth Amendment, prison officials are required to provide medical care to inmates.
Laughlin v. Schriro, 430 F.3d 927, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 103 (1976)). Although “[t]he Eighth Amendment does not apply to pretrial
detainees, . . . the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes analogous
duties on jailers to care for detainees.” Christian v. Wagner, 623 F.3d 608, 613 (8th
Cir. 2010) (citing City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983)).
Thus, to establish a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, Jackson must
demonstrate both that he had an objectively serious medical need, and that Defendants
knew of this need but deliberately disregarded it. Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905,
914 (8th Cir. 2011). An objectively serious medical need is “one that has been
diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a
layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Camberos v.
Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Johnson v. Busby, 953 F.2d 349,
351 (8th Cir. 1991)). “Whether a prison’s medical staff deliberately disregarded the
needs of an inmate is a factually-intensive inquiry.”

Meuir v. Greene Cnty. Jail

Employees, 487 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d
778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997)). “[D]eliberate indifference includes something more than
negligence but less than actual intent to harm; it requires proof of a reckless disregard
of the known risk.”

Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2001)
4

(quoting Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 602 (8th Cir. 2005)). A plaintiff cannot
establish a constitutional violation for conduct that is merely negligent. Estelle, 429
U.S. at 106.
Jackson fails to establish that he had an objectively serious medical need or that
Defendants knew of such a need and were deliberately indifferent to it. 3 The Amended
Complaint states that Jackson began experiencing tooth pain between September 1 and
September 7, 2023 (Am. Compl. ¶ 6), but when he saw a nurse on September 10, the
medical record does not indicate that he reported any dental concerns. (Med. Rec. at
16–17.). When Jackson complained of tooth pain on September 12, 2023, a nurse
practitioner provided ibuprofen and oral gel to alleviate his symptoms and placed him
on a list to see a dentist. (Am. Compl. ¶ 8; Med. Rec. at 20.) On September 18, 2023,
Jackson reported ongoing tooth-related pain, and a nurse practitioner provided
antibiotics, reiterated that he was on the list to see a dentist, and advised him to contact
medical if his symptoms worsened or new symptoms arose. (Med. Rec. at 30, 40.)
Although Jackson visited a nurse later in September, he did not report tooth pain. (Id.
at 41.)
To the extent that Jackson contends that his claim is premised on a delay in
treatment, the record contradicts this argument.

When a claim for deliberate

indifference is premised on a delay in medical treatment, “the objective seriousness of
the deprivation should also be measured by reference to the effect of delay in treatment.
Although Jackson’s responsive memorandum was filed out of time, the Court
exercised its discretion and considered his submissions. See Sugarbaker v. SSM Health
Care, 187 F.3d 853, 855–56 (8th Cir. 1999).
3

5

To establish this effect, the inmate must place verifying medical evidence in the record
to establish the detrimental effect of delay in medical treatment.” Laughlin, 430 F.3d at
929 (quotations omitted). Jackson fails to provide any evidence to demonstrate a
harmful effect from any alleged delay in treatment.

To the contrary, the record

demonstrates that Jackson received care for his tooth-related symptoms in the month
leading up to his appointment with Dr. Betz.
Ultimately, when Jackson saw Dr. Betz on October 4, 2023, Dr. Betz addressed
his concerns, Jackson chose a treatment plan, Dr. Betz performed the treatment, and
Jackson immediately reported that he was no longer experiencing discomfort. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 13; Med. Rec. at 50–51.)

Jackson does not point to any evidence

demonstrating that he continued to report tooth-related pain following his October 4,
2023, appointment, much less that Defendants knew of such a complaint and recklessly
disregarded the risk it posed to Jackson. Indeed, the medical record is void of any such
indication. Jackson utterly fails to demonstrate any material fact in dispute
demonstrating an objectively serious medical need to which Defendants were
deliberately indifferent. 4
There is no genuine dispute of material fact, and Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.

Jackson contends that Defendants never provided his medical record to him, but
Defendants sent him an email message with a link containing his medical record on
June 20, 2024. (Docket No. 54-1.)

4

6

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 42) is
GRANTED; and

2.

This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

s/ Paul A. Magnuson

Date: November 26, 2024

Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge

7