The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Terrance Garrett, originally pro se, brought this action against Cook County, Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart, Chief Operating Officer of Cermak Health Services David Fagus, the former Chief Operating Officer of Cermak Health Services Leonard Bersky, Executive Director of Cook County Department of Corrections Salvador Godinez, Chief Operating Officer of the Cook County Department of Public Health Stephen Martin, Chief of the Cook County Bureau of Health Services Daniel Winship, Doctor Prozoski, and other unknown Cook County Sheriff's Deputies. Now represented by counsel and on his third amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical care while he was a pre-trial detainee in the Cook County Department of Corrections in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts I and III). Plaintiff also alleges state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II) and Indemnification (Count IV).
Defendants Dart and Bersky have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them in their official and individual capacities . In his response brief, Plaintiff states that he wishes to voluntarily dismiss the claims against Bersky in his individual and official capacities. See Pl.'s Resp. at 2. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants' motion  as it applies to Bersky.
Additionally, Defendants Martin, Godinez and Fagus have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them in their official and individual capacities . On January 28, 2010, Plaintiff dismissed his individual capacity claim against Defendant Martin. See DE 63. Therefore, the Court only addresses the motion to dismiss as it pertains to Defendants Godinez and Fagus. The remaining Defendants have not moved to dismiss.
For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the individual capacity claims as to Bersky, Godinez, Fagus, and Dart for failure to state a claim. As previously stated, Plaintiff has already dismissed his individual capacity claim against Defendant Martin. The official capacity claims against Martin, Godinez, Fagus, and Bersky are dismissed as being redundant of Plaintiff's claims against the governmental entities that employ them. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 (1985) (actions brought against government officers in their official capacities are actually claims against the government entity for which the officers work). Count III remains pending as to Defendant Cook County and Defendant Dart.
From September 2008 to January 2009, Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee at the Cook County Department of Corrections (CCDOC), suffered from an abscessed tooth, causing him to experience excruciating pain. After multiple requests, Plaintiff saw Defendant Prozoroski, a dentist, on September 29, 2009. Upon examination, Defendant Prozoroski concluded that one of Plaintiff's front teeth would have to be removed but the back tooth could be saved by filling. However, Defendant Prozoroski refused to treat the back tooth, stating that he "did not get paid enough by Cook County to fill teeth." As a result, Plaintiff continued to endure excruciating, ongoing pain.
On September 30, 2008, Plaintiff again requested treatment for his back tooth. Defendant Prozoroski examined Plaintiff on October 6, 2008. Defendant Prozoroski determined that Plaintiff had an abscess in his back tooth and wrote a prescription for antibiotics and pain medicine. Defendant Prozoroski informed Plaintiff that he would follow-up with Plaintiff in approximately one week, once the swelling in Plaintiff's gums had subsided. From October through January 2009, Plaintiff requested further medical attention and experienced "terrible pain and difficulties with the same tooth that Defendant Prozoroski examined but had not * * * treated." Compl. at ¶ 22. On January 26, 2009, Defendant Prozoroski filled Plaintiff's tooth. On January 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed a grievance, alleging unnecessary delay in treating his back tooth, and on March 5, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit.
II. Legal Standard on a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint, not the merits of the case. See Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint first must comply with Rule 8(a) by providing "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)), such that the defendant is given "fair notice of what the * * * claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Second, the factual allegations in the complaint must be sufficient to raise the possibility of relief above the "speculative level," assuming that all of the allegations in the complaint are true. E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "Detailed factual allegations" are not required, but the plaintiff must allege facts that, when "accepted as true, * * * 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, ----, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. "[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563. The Court accepts as true all of the well-pleaded facts alleged by the plaintiff and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. See Barnes v. Briley, 420 F.3d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 2005).
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against "[e]very person, who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The § 1983 claims of a pretrial detainee are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause rather than under the Eighth Amendment. Butera v. Cottey, 285 F.3d 6901, 605 (7th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, the claim is still "analyzed under the Eighth Amendment test." Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 844 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1999).
There are two ways in which a government actor may be sued: in his official capacity (Monell) or his individual (sometimes called "personal") capacity. Generally, an official capacity suit is brought against a high-ranking official as a means of challenging an unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom. See Hill v. Shelander, 924 F.2d 1370, 1372 (7th Cir. 1991). Suing a government employee in his official capacity is akin to suing the entity that employs him and the standard for liability is the same. See, e.g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985). By contrast, an ...