Opinion ID: 684580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits of Givens' Dental Claim

Text: 6 Givens alleges that defendants violated his due process rights by failing to provide him with adequate dental care. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits punishment of pretrial detainees, because they have not been found guilty. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). [P]retrial detainees, who have not been convicted of any crimes, retain at least those constitutional rights that we have held are enjoyed by convicted prisoners. Id. at 545. The question is whether defendants intentionally, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference withheld medical care from Givens. Brownell v. Figel, 950 F.2d 1285, 1290 (7th Cir.1991); Salazar v. City of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233 (7th Cir.1991). Gross negligence does not violate due process. Salazar, 940 F.2d at 238. 7 Prior to his detention in October 1989, Givens had occasional toothaches; he had been planning to get a tooth pulled. The day after he first complained of tooth pain after he was in the jail, he saw Flick. He then received prescriptions for his pain and the infection in his mouth, and was allowed to see Flick every time he requested medical attention. Givens acknowledges that his condition was no longer 'acute,'  but that it was  'chronic.'  Pl.'s Br. at 27. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, Givens did not show any action (or omission) by defendants that suggests deliberate indifference to a serious medical need so as to raise a material issue of fact. He therefore fails to make a factual showing of a violation of his constitutional rights.