Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03394/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03394-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Captain Anderson
Appellee
Carey Bisbey
Appellee
Bisby
Appellee
Clavin
Appellee
Kenneth Clayton
Appellee
Cole
Appellee
Captain Glenn
Appellee
Greene County
Appellee
Greene County Jail Employees
Appellee
Hilder
Appellee
Jack Merritt
Appellee
Larry W. Meuir
Appellant
Michael Oravec
Appellee
Reed
Appellee
Scott
Appellee
West
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3394

___________

Larry W. Meuir, * 

* 

Appellant, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Greene County Jail Employees; Reed; * 

Captain Glenn; Captain Anderson; * 

Kenneth Clayton; Jack Merritt; Cole; * 

Bisby; Hilder; Scott; Clavin; West; * 

Michael Oravec; Greene County; * 

Carey Bisbey, * 

* 

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2007

Filed: June 6, 2007

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Larry Meuir brought this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that

while he was incarcerated in the Greene County Jail ("the Jail"), the Jail's medical

staff was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Meuir also contended

that the staff retaliated against him for refusing to visit a dentist who he alleges

followed a "pull-teeth-only" county policy. Meuir also challenged the alleged pullAppellate Case: 05-3394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316644
1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

teeth-only policy. The district court1

 granted summary judgment in favor of the

defendants. Meuir appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the

defendants and its denial of his discovery motions. We affirm.

I. Background

Meuir suffers from chronic dental problems, specifically bleeding gums and

toothaches. During a prior incarceration in the Fulton Correctional Center ("Fulton"),

Fulton treated Meuir's condition with a prescription mouthwash until his release in

1997. In 2002, following a drug conviction, Meuir was held for three months in the

Jail while awaiting permanent assignment by the Missouri Department of Corrections.

During his initial medical screening at the Jail, Meuir did not report his history of

dental problems. Meuir stated in his deposition that he did not exhibit any notable

signs of immediate dental problems at that time; his gums were not bleeding,

inflamed, or infected. After a month in the Jail, Meuir first sought medical attention

after noticing that his gums bled after brushing and eating crunchy foods. He told the

nurse on duty, Marilyn Cole, that he bled for roughly a minute after brushing and that

he experienced minor pain. Cole provided Meuir with Tylenol for his discomfort. 

Over the course of the next month, Meuir saw four nurses at the jail: Cole, Mary

Hilder, Michael Oravec, and Katharina Bisby ("the nurses"). Each visit, Meuir made

the same complaints: bleeding gums and toothaches. In response, the nurses simply

encouraged him to brush and gargle with salt water and provided him with Tylenol for

his pain. Despite his requests, the nurses declined to prescribe the medicated

mouthwash that Meuir had used in Fulton. However, one of the nurses designated

Meuir for transport to see the county dentist along with other inmates needing dental

services.

Appellate Case: 05-3394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316644
-3-

When guards arrived to transport Meuir to see the county dentist, Meuir refused

to go. According to Meuir, a guard informed him that the county dentist was a "pullteeth-only" dentist and that inmates had no alternative provider. Meuir interpreted

these comments to mean that Meuir would have his teeth removed rather than be

provided with any less radical treatment. After Meuir refused to visit the county

dentist, the jail's doctor, Dr. Carey Bisby, stopped supplying Meuir with Tylenol.

Meuir could still purchase the same medication at the prison commissary. Meuir's

dental condition worsened until he was transferred to a different penal institution in

Farmington, Missouri, where he received the medicated mouthwash he had used

previously at Fulton.

In January 2003, Meuir filed this suit pro se against the nurses and Dr. Bisby.

He also filed suit against Greene County, owner and operator of the Jail. In the suits,

Meuir alleges that: (1) the nurses and Dr. Bisby were deliberately indifferent to his

medical needs; (2) Dr. Bisby retaliated against him for not seeing the county dentist;

and (3) Greene County has an unconstitutional, unwritten pull-teeth-only policy.

During the discovery phase, Meuir requested the dental records of all inmates housed

in the Jail. The court denied this request. Upon completion of discovery, the nurses,

Dr. Bisby and Greene County successfully moved for summary judgment. 

II. Discussion

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, considering the facts in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Arnold v. Nursing & Rehab. Ctr. at

Good Shepard, LLC, 471 F.3d 843, 845 (8th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is proper

when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Id. Meuir, now with appointed counsel, appeals raising

four issues.

Appellate Case: 05-3394 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316644
-4-

A. Deliberate Indifference

Meuir first alleges that the nurses and Dr. Bisby provided constitutionally

inadequate medical care by failing to prescribe him mouthwash and by failing to

schedule a dentist appointment earlier. A prison's medical staff violates the Eighth

Amendment if they commit "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence

deliberate indifference to [an inmate's] serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A prima facie case alleging such deliberate indifference requires

the inmate-plaintiff to demonstrate that he suffered from an objectively serious

medical need and that prison officials actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded,

that need. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir.1997). In granting

summary judgment, the district court concluded that Meuir satisfied his burden of

showing that the Jail's medical staff was aware of his serious medical need, but that

he failed to show that they deliberately disregarded that need.

Whether a prison's medical staff deliberately disregarded the needs of an inmate

is a factually-intensive inquiry. Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997);

Jensen v. Clarke, 94 F.3d 1191, 1197–98 (8th Cir. 1996). The plaintiff-inmate must

clear a substantial evidentiary threshold to show that the prison's medical staff

deliberately disregarded the inmate's needs by administering an inadequate treatment.

See Dulany, 132 F.3d at 1239 (holding "inmates have no constitutional right to receive

a particular or requested course of treatment, and prison doctors remain free to

exercise their independent medical judgment"). "[A] prisoner's mere difference of

opinion over matters of expert medical judgment or a course of medical treatment

fail[s] to rise to the level of a constitutional violation." Taylor v. Bowers, 966 F.2d

417, 421 (8th Cir. 1992). 

Meuir produced neither expert testimony nor documentary evidence to support

his claim that the treatment provided by the Jail's medical staff was constitutionally

inadequate. The nurses and Dr. Bisby, on the other hand, adduced affidavits from a

dentist and Dr. Bisby attesting that the treatment provided by the Jail's medical staff

Appellate Case: 05-3394 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316644
-5-

was adequate. "In the face of medical records indicating that treatment was provided

and physician affidavits indicating that the care provided was adequate, an inmate

cannot create a question of fact by merely stating that she did not feel she received

adequate treatment." Dulany, 132 F.3d at 1240. After a careful review of the record,

we affirm the judgment of the district court.

B. Retaliatory Discipline

Next, Meuir alleges that Dr. Bisby retaliated against him for refusing to visit the

county dentist. A prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights are violated if prison officials

"impose a disciplinary sanction against a prisoner in retaliation for the prisoner's

exercise of his constitutional right." Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 1993).

A prima facie case of retaliatory discipline requires a showing that: (1) the prisoner

exercised a constitutionally protected right; (2) prison officials disciplined the

prisoner; and (3) exercising the right was the motivation for the discipline. Id.;

Orebaugh v. Caspari, 910 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1990). The plaintiff-inmate has a

heavy evidentiary burden to establish a prima facie case. Murphy v. Mo. Dept. of

Corr., 769 F.2d 502, 503 n.1 (8th Cir. 1985). Merely alleging that an act was

retaliatory is insufficient. Benson v. Cady, 761 F.2d 335, 342 (7th Cir. 1985).

Here, Meuir contends that Dr. Bisby denied him Tylenol because Meuir refused

to see the county dentist. Meuir, however, offers no proof. The record evidence on

point consists of Dr. Bisby's affidavit essentially stating that reason, not retaliation,

caused termination of the free Tylenol. Dr. Bisby concluded that Meuir's condition

was not serious given Meuir's declination to visit the dentist. Further, it is undisputed

that Meuir still had access to Tylenol through the prison commissary. Meuir provides

no evidence that Dr. Bisby knew why Meuir refused to go to the dentist or that the

decision to deny Tylenol was motivated by any impermissible motive. After a careful

review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Appellate Case: 05-3394 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316644
-6-

C. The Pull-Teeth-Only Policy

Next, Meuir also petitioned for injunctive relief against Greene County, seeking

to end the Jail's unwritten pull-teeth-only policy. Article III of the United States

Constitution confines the jurisdiction of federal courts to justiciable cases and

controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,

559–60 (1992). "[S]tanding is an essential and unchanging part of the

case-or-controversy requirement of Article III." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. Courts are

"obliged to examine standing sua sponte where standing has erroneously been

assumed below."Adarand Const., Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103, 109 (2001). Standing

to seek injunctive relief requires a plaintiff, inter alia, to show a likelihood of a future

injury. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983). 

The district court assumed Meuir had standing for injunctive relief. We find,

however, that standing is lacking given Meuir's changed custodial placement. Meuir

filed suit against Greene County four months after his transfer to Farmington,

Missouri, some 200 miles away, where his dental ailments have been treated

apparently without complaint. Meuir's deposition suggests that he expects to serve the

remainder of his 15-year term of imprisonment in Farmington. No reason exists to

suspect that Meuir will ever return to the Jail. Therefore, we conclude that Meuir lacks

standing to challenge the alleged policy.

D. Discovery Requests

Lastly, during the discovery phase, Meuir sought copies of all dental treatment

requests filed by all inmates during a five-year period. The district court refused to

grant Meuir's two motions to compel, finding that the requests were too vague,

excessive, and irrelevant. "We review such discovery rulings in a manner both narrow

and deferential, and reversal is only warranted if an erroneous ruling amounted to a

gross abuse of discretion." Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994–95 (8th Cir. 2006)

(internal citations and quotations omitted). Because the information sought by the

discovery requests pertained to Meuir's challenge to the County's alleged pull-teethAppellate Case: 05-3394 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316644
-7-

only policy, we need not address the matter given our holding that Meuir lacks

standing to challenge the policy.

III. Conclusion

After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. Further, we dismiss Meuir's challenge to Greene County's alleged pull-teethonly policy because he lacks standing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3394 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316644