United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. HALE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Treyshawn Lee Jones, pro se, filed this in forma
pauperis civil-rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This case is before the Court for screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007). For the following reasons, this case will be
dismissed in part and allowed to continue in part.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
a pretrial detainee at the Oldham County Jail, names as
Defendants Lt. Davis Reese of the Louisville Metro Department
of Corrections (LMDC) and the following Oldham County Jail
employees: Lt. Nick Dickens, Major Jeff Tindall, Nurse
Monica, and Nurse Stephanie. All Defendants are sued in their
states that on November 25, 2017, while housed at LMDC he
chipped a tooth on piece of metal in his food. He states that
he filed a health request to see a dentist and that he was
given Ibuprofen for pain for several days during December
2017. He states that on April 7, 2018, the Correct Care
dentist saw him and attempted to extract the tooth but was
unsuccessful despite drilling, cutting, and pulling
vigorously. The dentist informed LMDC that Plaintiff needed
an offsite appointment. Plaintiff states that Defendant Reese
told him that he had an offsite dentist appointment.
Plaintiff states that he was given Tylenol 3 for pain and
“amox. for infection.” Plaintiff states that his
follow up appointment occurred on April 12, 2018, “with
the same healthcare just a different dentist, ” who
also was unable to extract the tooth. He states that LMDC
discontinued the Tylenol 3 and amoxicillin on June 29, 2018.
was then transferred to the Oldham County Jail where he
informed them of the ongoing dental issue. He states that
Defendant Monica told him that she would add him to the
“dentist list.” He states that he was told two
more times in June that he was added to the dentist list.
Plaintiff states that he filed a grievance on June 27, 2018,
to which Defendant Dickens responded, “‘I also
know you've been added to dentist list.” He states
that on July 2, 2018, “medical told me IBU pain med is
off canteen.” He states that on August 21, 2018, he was
“called in to see a dentist. Instead it was Nurses
Heather and Stephanie.” According to Plaintiff, after
he informed them what was going on, Nurse Heather said she
would let the dentist know and Nurse Stephanie stated it was
unlikely that he had an offsite dentist appointment.
alleges that on August 22, 2018, Defendant Tindal responded
to a grievance that Plaintiff had filed regarding his need to
see a dentist, saying that there was not anything to grieve
because medical was handling the situation per guidelines.
also states that on September 11, 2018, while a group of U.S.
Marshal officers and Defendant Tindal were doing a
“walk through, ” Plaintiff told them of his
dental situation. He states that Defendant Tindal responded,
“‘I'll check into it.'”
next alleges that he was called to a dentist appointment on
September 25, 2018, but really it was to see Defendants
Heather and Stephanie to make sure he still wanted a dentist
appointment. He alleges that as of September 26, 2018, he was
still having complications eating and sleeping, was in pain,
and was swallowing blood. Plaintiff has since been released
from the Oldham County Jail.
relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary and punitive damages.
prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a
governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court
must review the complaint and dismiss the action, if the
Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). A
claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Id. at 327. When determining
whether Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light
most favorable to Plaintiff and accept all factual
allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside,
Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). While a
reviewing court must liberally construe pro se
pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must
include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
against Defendant Reese
alleges with regard to Defendant Reese that he did not see a
dentist while at LMDC after April 12, 2018, and that his
medical records were not sent to the Oldham County Jail with
him. Plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim against
Defendant Reese. He alleges that Defendant Reese told him he
had an offsite appointment but does not explain how merely
telling him this amounts to deliberate indifference. Although
Plaintiff alleges that he did not see a dentist for the
approximately two more months he remained at LMDC, he also