The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
Monday, 07 November, 2011 11:56:46 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act. He alleges deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. Judge Harold A. Baker has already granted the motions for summary judgment by Defendants Vance, Phillips, and Bednarz, leaving only Dr. Mitchell as a defendant. Now before this Court is Dr. Mitchell's motion for summary judgment, which will be denied for the reasons below.*fn1
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A movant may demonstrate the absence of a material dispute through specific cites to admissible evidence, or by showing that the non-movant "cannot produce admissible evidence to support the [material] fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(B). If the movant clears this hurdle, the non-movant may not simply rest on his or her allegations in the complaint, but instead must point to admissible evidence in the record to show that a genuine dispute exists.
Id.; Harvey v. Town of Merrillville, 649 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2011). "In a § 1983 case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the constitutional deprivation that underlies the claim, and thus must come forward with sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact to avoid summary judgment." McAllister v. Price, 615 F.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010).
At the summary judgment stage, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, with material factual disputes resolved in the non-movant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when a reasonable juror could find for the non-movant. Id.
Plaintiff is detained as a "resident" in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center ("Rushville") pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act.Rushville retains one dentist to serve its over 400 residents-Defendant Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell is an employee of Wexford Health Services, providing dental services to Rushville residents pursuant to a contract. She works at Rushville 15 hours per week.
Dr. Mitchell first examined Plaintiff's teeth in May, 2005, when Plaintiff was detained in the Joliet Treatment and Detention Center. She took x-rays and planned to put a filling in tooth number 29 at the next visit. Plaintiff was scheduled for the filling in June, 2005, but Plaintiff asked to reschedule because he was suffering from a migraine headache that day. Plaintiff filed a request for dental care on August 2, 2005, reporting the loss of two fillings, which exposed sharp edges and made eating difficult. That same day, Dr. Mitchell filled teeth numbers 3, 4, and 29 and placed a suture for a cut that apparently occurred during the procedure. Plaintiff asserts that the fillings were temporary. Since Dr. Mitchell does not specify the type of filling and this is summary judgment, this Court will assume the fillings were temporary. Two days later Plaintiff submitted a dental request stating that the stitches had come out but that the cut was healing well and he had no complaints. (Complaint, d/e 1, p. 16).
Dr. Mitchell next saw Plaintiff on August 8, 2005 for "scaling and root planing" and she determined that Plaintiff's cut was healing normally. Her records indicate that she planned to fill teeth 3 and 4 at the end of September and tooth 29 on October 4, 2005 (presumably with permanent fillings). On October 14, 2005, Dr. Mitchell filled teeth numbers 3 and 4. In November, 2005, Dr. Mitchell "scaled," or deep-cleaned, tooth 29 and placed a permanent filling in tooth 29. The next month, Dr. Mitchell saw Plaintiff to examine some lesions she had noticed. She determined that the lesions were healing properly.
In February, 2006, Dr. Mitchell filled teeth 13 and 15. In May, 2006, Dr. Mitchell examined Plaintiff in response to his request for Sensodyne toothpaste, but Dr. Mitchell had no samples of Sensodyne in her clinic on that date.
Plaintiff was moved from the Joliet facility to the Rushville facility along with the other residents during the Summer of 2006. On August 11, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a request for dental care regarding a loose filling, apparently in tooth 29. Dr. Mitchell examined Plaintiff two days later and gave Plaintiff a sample of Sensodyne toothpaste. On August 16, 2006, she took an x-ray of tooth number 29 and began placing a filling in that tooth, but she was unable to finish because the power was out.*fn2 On November 27, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a dental care request about tooth 29, stating that the temporary filling had fallen out three weeks prior and that he had awoken with serious, throbbing pain.
Six days later, on December 3, 2006, Dr. Mitchell began a root canal on tooth number 29, but she was unable to complete the procedure in one visit. Dr. Mitchell was unable to complete the procedure the following week because the dental equipment was not working. The records appear to show that Plaintiff was supposed to be scheduled for December 16, 2006, to finish the procedure, but the root canal was not completed until December 27, 2006, more than three weeks after the procedure was started.
The dental records from December 27, 2006, indicate that Dr. Mitchell planned to fill tooth number 31 on January 7, ...