United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
PHILIP
P. SIMON JUDGE
Lawrence
Whitfield alleges that he is not receiving constitutionally
adequate dental care, and he seeks a preliminary injunction
directing that he be seen by an outside dentist and that the
dentists on staff at the prison be provided with the
equipment they need to perform their work adequately. ECF 24;
ECF 32; ECF 39. The Warden filed a response to
Whitfield's requests for injunctive relief. ECF 40. After
reviewing Whitfield's complaint, his various motions
seeking injunctive relief, and the Warden's response, I
took Whitfield's requests for injunctive relief under
advisement and directed the Warden to supplement his
response. ECF 44.
As
explained in my order, the Warden's initial response did
not adequately address whether tooth number three has been
examined since it was filled in February, what the findings
were, and what additional treatment, if any, was performed. I
directed the Warden to provide a sworn statement from Dr.
Pearcy or another examining dentist with his supplemental
response. The Warden has now filed his supplement, including
an affidavit from Dr. Pearcy. ECF 55. In addition, Whitfield
has filed a supplemental declaration. ECF 53. Accordingly,
Whitfield's requests for a preliminary injunction are now
ripe for decision.
As
noted in my earlier opinion, “a preliminary injunction
is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not
be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing,
carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (emphasis in
original). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving
party must show: (1) he will suffer irreparable harm before
the final resolution of his claims; (2) available remedies at
law are inadequate; and (3) he has a likelihood of success on
the merits. See BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809
F.3d 317, 323-24 (7th Cir. 2015). The court then
“weighs the competing harms to the parties if an
injunction is granted or denied and also considers the public
interest.” Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654,
665 (7th Cir. 2013). An injunction ordering the defendant to
take an affirmative act rather than merely refrain from
specific conduct is “cautiously viewed and sparingly
issued.” Graham v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d
293, 295 (7th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
It is
true that every inmate is entitled to receive
constitutionally adequate medical care. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). However, before an
inmate can obtain injunctive relief, he must make a clear
showing that the medical care he is receiving violates the
Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
See Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.
2012); Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972
(1997).
Whitfield
asserts that he developed pain and requested dental care in
September of 2018. Despite multiple requests, he did not see
a dentist until February 19, 2019. Whitfield's medical
records show that, on February 19, 2019, Dr. Pearcy repaired
tooth number three with resin. ECF 40-2 at 2. According to
Whitfield, Dr. Pearcy told him that there was a crack in his
filling, and he placed a filling on top of the old one. ECF
1-1 at 32. It fell out the same day. Id. He filed a
health-care request on March 8, 2019, because he was still in
pain. Id. Dr. Pearcy saw Whitfield again on May 21,
2019. ECF 40-2 at 2. However, in May, Dr. Pearcy did not
address tooth number three (the tooth that was restored in
February). Rather, Dr. Pearcy performed an amalgam
restoration of tooth number thirteen. Dr. Pearcy contends
that Mr. Whitfield did not complain about tooth number three
on May 21, 2019. ECF 55-1. Whitfield, on the other hand,
asserts that he did complain about tooth number three, but
Dr. Pearcy indicated that tooth number thirteen was more
important. ECF 53 at 1.
Whitfield
continued to complain of dental problems, and Dr. Pearcy saw
Whitfield again on September 24, 2019. At this visit, Dr.
Pearcy repaired tooth number nineteen with resin.
Id. Whitfield did not complain about tooth number
three. ECF 55-1. Two months later, Whitfield was seen by a
nurse for tooth pain. ECF 40-3. At that visit, Whitfield
indicated that his “tooth was hurting and had a
bump” and when he pushed on it, “pus and blood
came out.” Id. He was provided with both
Tylenol and amoxicillin. Id. Dr. Percy saw Whitfield
again on December 3, 2019. ECF 40-2 at 2. At this visit, Dr.
Pearcy repaired tooth number nineteen with an amalgam
filling. Id. Whitfield believes that the tooth
should have been pulled or, alternatively, a root canal
should have been performed at this visit. Whitfield did not
complain about tooth number three at this visit.
On
December 20, 2019, Whitfield was seen by Dr. Jeffrey
Wilkinson due to ongoing complaints regarding tooth number
nineteen. ECF 55-1 at 2. At this visit, tooth number 19 was
extracted. Although Dr. Wilkinson did not provide the court
with a sworn statement, Dr. Pearcy reports that Dr. Wilkinson
confirmed that Whitfield did not complain about tooth number
three at this visit.
In his
requests for injunctive relief, Whitfield seeks an
appointment with an outside dentist and an order directing
that Dr. Pearcy be provided with the equipment necessary to
perform his duties adequately, including an x-ray machine.
“The PLRA circumscribes the scope of the court's
authority to enter an injunction in the corrections context.
Where prison conditions are found to violate federal rights,
remedial injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no
further than necessary to correct the violation of the
Federal right, and use the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of the Federal right.”
Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012)
(quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). I've
already explained to Mr. Whitfield that “the
Constitution is not a medical code that mandates specific
medical treatment.” Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d
586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996). “Whether and how pain
associated with medical treatment should be mitigated is for
doctors to decide free from judicial interference, except in
the most extreme situations.” Id. Inmates are
“not entitled to demand specific care [nor] entitled to
the best care possible.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112
F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997). Thus, even if injunctive
relief were warranted here, it would not take the form of a
mandate that an outside dentist examine Whitfield or an order
that the dentists at the prison be provided with additional
equipment.
While
Whitfield insists that Dr. Pearcy provided him with
inadequate dental care and ignored his needs, the medical
records described above show that Whitfield was seen and
treated by Dr. Pearcy multiple times during the period in
question and, more recently, that Whitfield was treated by
Dr. Wilkinson. He has received extensive dental treatment for
a variety of dental problems. Without the necessity of a
court order, Whitfield even received the benefit of a second
opinion on how tooth number nineteen should be treated, which
resulted in an extraction - one of the methods of managing
this problem that Whitfield indicated he found acceptable.
Whitfield's
dental problems have not always been remedied with the
initial treatment. For example, tooth number nineteen was
repaired twice before it was ultimately
removed.[1] Nor has Whitfield always received the
treatment modality that he preferred - for example, a filling
was utilized when he would have preferred that a tooth be
pulled or that a root canal be performed. But Whitfield is
not entitled to decide what treatment he receives. He is not
even entitled to proper treatment. He is only entitled to
treatment that reflects professional judgment. See
Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008)
(“[M]edical professionals are not required to provide
proper medical treatment to prisoners, but rather they must
provide medical treatment that reflects professional
judgment, practice, or standards.”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
I've
already ruled that Whitfield received treatment for tooth
number nineteen that reflected professional judgment. ECF 44
at 5. Even when taken in the light most favorable to
Whitfield, the record before me shows that Whitfield has not
complained about tooth number three since at least May of
2019. At this juncture, the court is not deciding whether, at
some point in the past, Dr. Pearcy's care violated the
Eighth Amendment. At this early stage, I am only deciding
whether the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction
is warranted. After considering the record before me, I
cannot find that Whitfield's care for tooth number three
did not reflect professional judgment when he received dental
care on three occasions between September and December
without sharing that he was having ongoing problems with that
tooth. Indeed, it is not clear from Whitfield's recent
filings that he is still having problems with this tooth.
Nonetheless, if he is still having dental problems, given the
extensive dental care that has been provided in the past,
there is no reason to believe an injunction is necessary for
Whitfield to receive treatment that is consistent with what
the Eighth Amendment mandates.
ACCORDINGLY:
Plaintiff
Lawrence E. Whitfield's requests for preliminary
injunctive relief ...