# MILLER v. BERNHARD

> District Court, D. New Jersey · March 6, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10274905

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** March 6, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10274905

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BRAHEEM H. MILLER,
Plauntitt Civil Action No. 23-1135 (MAS) (TIB)
OPINION
JOEL BERNHARD, et al.,
Defendants.

SHIPP, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s sua sponte screening of Plaintiff
Braheem H. Miller’s complaint (ECF No. 1) and application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF
No. 1-1.) Having reviewed the application, this Court finds that Plaintiff has shown his entitlement
to proceed without prepayment of fees, and he shall therefore be granted in forma pauperis status. -
As Plaintiff shall be granted in forma pauperis status in this matter, this Court is required to screen
his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any claim which is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a convicted state prisoner currently confined in New Jersey State Prison. (ECF
No. 1 at 1.) In June 2021, Plaintiff reported to the dental department of the prison complaining of
tooth pain, which the department determined to be from an impacted tooth which needed to be
removed. (Ud. at 4.) On July 20, 2021, Defendant Saglimbere numbed Plaintiffs mouth with a

needle and then extracted the tooth, although the state of the tooth made the removal difficult. □□□□□
Saglimbere then stitched up Plaintiffs cavity, although the stitches later fell out in Plaintiff's cell
unit. Ud. at 4-5.)
Following the procedure, Plaintiff’s tongue was numb, which caused him some difficulties
with eating. (/d.) Plaintiff raised the issue to the medical department, but was told in July 2021
that numbness was a common result of the surgery Plaintiff underwent and would most likely
eventually resolve itself. (/d.) Plaintiff was given treatment for swelling and pain at that time.
Plaintiff continued to complain, and in September 2021 was seen again by Saglimbere, who
noted the numbness in half of Plaintiff's tongue, and referred him for evaluation and treatment at
University Hospital. (/d. at 6.) Plaintiff ultimately received surgery on his tongue in April 2022
from Dr. Ziccardi, who noted that Plaintiff had not recovered from tongue numbness which
suggested an injury to the right lingual nerve. (/d. at 6.) Based on these events, Plaintiff believes
that the dentists and doctors who treated him prior to the surgery were deliberately indifferent to
his dental/medical needs.
U. LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff shall be granted in forma pauperis status, the Court is required to screen
his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to the statute, this Court must sua
sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, 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. Id. “The
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v.
Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)).

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a
district court is required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all
reasonable inferences from those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Phillips
v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008), but need not accept as true legal
conclusions couched as factual allegations. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). A
complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations” to survive a motion to dismiss, but must
contain “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v.
Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint “that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,’” and a complaint will not “suffice” if it
provides only “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Jd. (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)). “To survive a 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.”” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Jd. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A
complaint that provides facts “merely consistent with” the defendant’s liability “stops short of the
line between possibility and plausibility” and will not survive review under Rule 12(b)(6), Jd.
(quoting Twombly, 555 U.S. at 557). While pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed in
conducting such an analysis, pro se litigants must still “allege sufficient facts in their complaints
to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
Il. DISCUSSION
In his current complaint, Plaintiff seeks to raise a claim of deliberate indifference to his
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against several dentists and medical figures
for an injury to his right lingual nerve that apparently occurred during a tooth extraction. To plead

a viable claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs, a plaintiff must plead facts indicating
that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, in this case his dental needs.
See, e.g., Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003). This requires
that the Plaintiff plead facts which indicate that he had a sufficiently serious medical need, and
that the defendants engaged in actions or omissions which indicate they were deliberately
indifferent to that serious need. Jd. A medical need is sufficiently serious where it “has been
diagnosed as requiring treatment or [is a need that] is so obvious that a lay person would easily
recognize the necessity of a doctor’s attention.” Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro,
834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987), cert denied, 486 U.S. 1006 (1988). A defendant’s actions or
omissions will in turn amount to deliberate indifference where the defendant “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Natale, 318 F.3d at 582 (quoting Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). Deliberate indifference therefore “requires more than
inadequate medical attention or incomplete medical treatment,” see King v. County of Gloucester,
302 F. App’x 92, 96 (3d Cir. 2008), and a plaintiff who demonstrates conduct amounting to only
negligence or medical malpractice will fail to make out a claim for relief under § 1983. Rouse v.
Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). “‘Where a prisoner has received some medical
attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant
to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law.’”
Everett v. Nort, 547 F. App’x 117, 121 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States ex rel. Walker v.
Fayette County, 599 F.2d 573, 575 n.2 (3d Cir. 1979)).
Here, Plaintiff alleges facts indicating that he had a tooth injury, which Defendants treated
by removing his tooth. Although the removal was difficult, that injury was clearly treated. The
tooth removal apparently resulted in injury to Plaintiff's right lingual nerve. Although Plaintiff is
clearly unhappy with the slow course of treatment he received for his tongue numbness, he was

seen for the issue, treated for symptoms, and told the issue would most likely resolve itself. When
the issue did not resolve itself, he was referred for and received surgery. These facts, taken
together, do not amount to deliberate indifference. Nothing Plaintiff has pled indicates that
Defendants did not treat his symptoms or seek to resolve them, and Defendants clearly adjusted
treatment when the symptoms did not resolve. Although Plaintiff may argue that the dentist may
have initially been negligent in the way he removed the tooth,' resulting in the injury to his lingual
nerve, negligence is insufficient to establish a basis for relief in a civil rights matter. See King,
302 F. App’x at 96. Plaintiff's complaint must therefore be dismissed without prejudice for failure
to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 1-1)
is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
in its entirety. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint in this matter within thirty
(30) days. An order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' To the extent he believes Defendants were negligent in treating him, Plaintiff is free to file a
dental malpractice complaint in state court.
«

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10274905. Public record. Not legal advice.