United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JOSE ANGEL IBARRA, No. M13620, Plaintiff,
DR. HENDERSON, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Jose Angel Ibarra, an inmate currently housed in Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on dental care received while he was housed at Menard Correctional Center.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
According to the complaint, on May 14, 2012, Plaintiff Ibarra was seen by Dr. Henderson, the Menard dentist, because Plaintiff's partial denture was broken, leaving him unable to eat. Dr. Henderson asked when Plaintiff was slated to get out of prison. After learning that Plaintiff was to be released in approximately three years, Dr. Henderson told Plaintiff that the waiting list was long and that Plaintiff should see a dentist upon his release. Dr. Henderson further explained that he did not do the sort of denture repair that was needed, and that Menard was not "a Holiday Inn."
Plaintiff attempted to see the dentist again over a three month period, without success. On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff swallowed his broken denture, which he attributes to it not being repaired earlier by Dr. Henderson. Plaintiff was apparently forced to "pass" the denture.
On September 27, 2012, Dr. Henderson examined Plaintiff and discovered that teeth 4 and 13 were bleeding and loose. Dr. Henderson explained that the waiting list for treatment of these new issues was long, but the two teeth could be extracted immediately. Plaintiff declined to have the teeth extracted, preferring to wait for treatment.
Plaintiff saw Dr. Henderson again on November 2, 2012. Although Plaintiff requested an interpreter, none was provided, so Plaintiff unwittingly signed a form consenting to treatment. An anesthetic was administered and Dr. Henderson began working in Plaintiff's mouth. Plaintiff only later discovered when he removed gauze from his mouth that the two teeth he thought Dr. Henderson was repairing had been extracted.
Plaintiff contends that Dr. Henderson was deliberately indifferent to his, Plaintiff's, serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive ...