United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MICHAEL B. MOSLEY, Plaintiff,
DR. UNKNOWN FATOKI, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD WEBBER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Dr. Fatoki's
Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19].
Michael B. Mosley (“Plaintiff”) initiated this
lawsuit by filing a complaint in this Court on January 5,
2017, against Defendants Dr. Fatoki, Deputy Lisa Miller,
Melissa Unknown, and Barbara Odem (“Defendants”).
Plaintiff alleged Defendants failed to provide proper medical
care causing cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Dr.
Fatoki filed the pending Motion to Dismiss asserting
Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the Court
accepts as true the following facts alleged in
Plaintiff's Complaint. Great Rivers Habitat Alliance
v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 615 F.3d 958, 988 (8th
is an inmate at Ste. Genevieve County Jail (“the
jail”) and has been since September 29, 2016. Plaintiff
notified staff at the jail he has medical issues resulting in
unbearable pain. He was prescribed antibiotics and
for the first two weeks, ending on October 13th. The pain
continued. On October 14th, Plaintiff filed an
to see the doctor for medical attention. On October 21st,
Plaintiff saw a doctor and was prescribed antibiotics and IP for
an additional five days. Plaintiff also signed a medical
records release form. Due to the ongoing severe pain,
Plaintiff filed another MRS to see a doctor again. On October
28th, a doctor told Plaintiff he needed oral surgery but
would have to wait until he was released from jail. It was
also determined Plaintiff had a broken tooth that had become
infected and was causing lacerations in his mouth. Plaintiff
also had a fractured wisdom tooth needing to be removed. Dr.
Fatoki told Plaintiff he would refer him to a dentist.
failing to be called to see a dentist, Plaintiff filed an MRS
for dental care. Plaintiff saw the dentist on November 10,
2016, who told him he needed oral surgery and could not
provide treatment. The dentist stated he would provide
Plaintiff with antibiotics due to the infection. On November
15th, Plaintiff filed a grievance asking for immediate
medical attention and medication. On November 19th, Plaintiff
filed a second grievance stating he was in unbearable pain,
could not eat or sleep, and needed medical treatment. On
November 22nd, Plaintiff was prescribed IP, antibiotics and
an oral rinse lasting five days.
Gary Stolzer responded to Plaintiff's grievances on
November 23rd, stating Plaintiff needed to wait longer for
authorization from the United States Marshals to see an oral
surgeon and medical records had not yet been obtained. On
December 14th, Plaintiff saw an oral surgeon.
alleges Dr. Katoki failed to provide proper medical care
because it was clear and evident there was a metal plate
exposed in Plaintiff's mouth, two broken teeth, clear
swelling, and obvious pain.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”)
12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” The notice pleading standard of FRCP 8(a)(2)
requires a plaintiff to give “a short and plain
statement showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” To meet this standard and to survive a FRCP
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations
and citation omitted). This requirement of facial
plausibility means the factual content of a plaintiff's
allegations must “allow the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Cole v. Homier Distrib.
Co., 599 F.3d 856, 861 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Courts must assess the
plausibility of a given claim with reference to a
plaintiff's allegations as a whole, not in terms of the
plausibility of each individual allegation. Zoltek Corp.
v. Structural Polymer Group, 592 F.3d 893, 896 n.4 (8th
Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). This inquiry is
“a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The Court must
grant all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party. Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872-73
(8th Cir. 2010).
Dr. Fatoki asserts Plaintiff's claims against him should
be dismissed for failure to state a claim. According to Dr.
Fatoki, Plaintiff was receiving treatment, just not the
treatment he desired, and this cannot be the basis for a
claim for deliberate indifference.
official's deliberate indifference to an inmate's
serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. Popoalii v. Correctional Med.
Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008). When an
inmate is a pretrial detainee at the time of the alleged
violation, the claim is analyzed under the Fourteen
Amendment's due process clause rather than the Eighth
Amendment. Kayle v. Leonard, 477 F.3d 544, 550 (8th
Cir. 2007). Pretrial detainees are entitled to the same
protections under the Fourteenth Amendment as inmates receive
under the Eighth Amendment. Id. Although Plaintiff
has improperly alleged his claims under the Eighth Amendment
because he is a pretrial detainee, not a prison inmate, the
Court will liberally construe his complaint to allege
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whitson v. Stone
County Jail, 602 F.3d 920, 922 n.1 (8th Cir. 2010).
facie case for deliberate indifference requires the inmate to
show he suffered an objectively serious medical need, and the
officials knew of the need but deliberately disregarded it.
Popoalii, 512 F.3d at 499. A serious medical need is
one diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment, or one
so obvious even a layperson could ...