Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kendrick v. Shaw

September 17, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Ronald A. Guzmán


Plaintiff, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center, filed this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him necessary dental care. Defendants have filed motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendant Selmer's motion to dismiss and grants in part and denies in part the other defendants' motion.


Plaintiff alleges that he saw defendant Selmer, a Stateville dentist, on August 17, 2006 because he had a broken filling. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Selmer told plaintiff to return on December 1, 2006 for treatment. (Id.) Plaintiff was unable to do so because the prison was on lock down and, pursuant to a policy adopted by then-Stateville warden defendant McCann, inmates could not receive medical treatment during a lock down. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5.) Ultimately, Selmer extracted the affected tooth on December 19, 2006. (Id. ¶ 3.)

On March 14, 2007, plaintiff was again examined by Selmer, who told plaintiff that he had twelve cavities, which would shortly be filled. (Id.) Plaintiff did not see Selmer or any other Stateville dentist, for the next two years and did not file a grievance about the lack of dental care in that period. (Id.)

On February 26, 2009, plaintiff saw defendant Mitchell, another Stateville dentist, who told him he had twelve cavities and scheduled him for treatment on April 23, 2009. (Id. ¶ 4.) On April 14, 2009, plaintiff's unit went on lock down, so he filed an emergency grievance seeking permission to see Mitchell on April 23 despite the lock down. (Id., Ex. B, 4/14/09 Grievance.) Defendant Shaw, who was the warden at the time, refused to give the grievance expedited consideration and sent it to defendant Hosey, an assistant warden, for processing as an ordinary grievance. (Id.; Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) On May 3, 2009, as part of the normal grievance process, plaintiff's grievance was sent to defendant Young, the Stateville healthcare administrator. (Id. ¶ 6.)

On May 18, 2009, plaintiff filed another emergency grievance asking for immediate dental care, which Shaw also refused to expedite and Hosey, and later Young, received for processing. (Id., Ex. B, 5/18/09 Grievance; Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 6.) Nonetheless, plaintiff saw Mitchell on May 20, 2009, and she filled one of his cavities. (Compl. ¶ 4.) As of August 6, 2009, when plaintiff filed this suit, plaintiff had not received a response to his grievances and his eleven other cavities had not been treated.

Plaintiff alleges that Stateville's policy of refusing medical treatment to inmates during lock downs and defendants' failure to provide him with dental care violated his Eighth Amendment rights. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 5.) He seeks both damages and injunctive relief.


On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 580 (7th Cir. 2009). "[A] complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations" but must contain "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Exhaustion

Selmer argues that the claims asserted against him must be dismissed because plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted."). Exhaustion is an affirmative defense that defendant has the burden of proving. Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). Ordinarily, an affirmative defense is not an appropriate basis for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Xechem, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 372 F.3d 899, (7th Cir. 2004). If, however, the pleadings establishes that there is "an impenetrable defense," a claim may be dismissed under that Rule. Id.

Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies with respect to his claim against Selmer if he filed a grievance about it at the time and in the manner required by the prison's administrative rules. Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002). Among other things, the Stateville grievance procedure requires an inmate to submit a grievance within sixty days of the his discovery of the event or problem giving rise to the grievance. ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 20, § 504.810. Plaintiff alleges that on March 14, 2007, he was told by Selmer that he had twelve cavities, which would be filled shortly. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also alleges that he did not receive dental care from Selmer or anyone else for the next two years and did not file a grievance about that fact until April 14, 2009. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4 ; id., Exs. A & B, Grievances.) As a result, the complaint establishes that plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims against Selmer.*fn2 Individual Capacity Claims

The remaining defendants can be held individually liable under section 1983 only if they caused or participated in the alleged deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Vance v. Washington, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Defendants violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights if their actions constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). Defendants acted with deliberate indifference if they "knew of a substantial risk of harm to [plaintiff] and acted or failed to act in disregard of that risk." Walker v. Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030, 1037 (7th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff does not allege facts that suggest McCann knew about plaintiff's dental care needs, let alone ignored them, during his tenure as warden. Absent such allegations, plaintiff has not stated a viable claim against McCann.

The situation is different for the remaining defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Mitchell knew as of February 26, 2009 that he had twelve cavities that had been untreated for two years, Shaw knew on April 14, 2009, Hosey knew sometime between April 14, and May 3, 2009 and Young knew on May 3, 2009. (Compl. ΒΆΒΆ 1-2, 4, 6; id., Exs. A & B, Grievances.) He further alleges that Mitchell filled one of his cavities on May 20, 2009 but, as of the filing of this suit on August 2009, the eleven other cavities remained untreated. Thus, excluding the nearly month-long lock-down period, plaintiff alleges that Mitchell ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.