holding that inmate who was denied dental care for three broken teeth stated an Eighth Amendment claim, observing that potential infection from the injury "could very easily become systemic”
How later courts described this case
- holding that inmate who was denied dental care for three broken teeth stated an Eighth Amendment claim, observing that potential infection from the injury "could very easily become systemic”
- holding that plaintiff stated a claim for compensatory and punitive damages from jail officials for failing to reasonably protect him from attacks by fellow inmates
- pretrial detainee possesses right to be free from knowing exposure to violence or reckless disregard of right to be free from attacks
- following a prison fight, inmate's denial of medical treatment for eye injury and three broken teeth for three months was an Eighth Amendment violation
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Salazar v. City Of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233 (1991)
748 F.2d 1142, 1150 (7th Cir.1984), limited on other grounds, Salazar v. City of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233, 240-41 (7th Cir.1991).
Limited on other grounds by Salazar v. City of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233 (1991)
748 F.2d 1142, 1150 (7th Cir.1984), limited on other grounds, Salazar v. City of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233, 240-41 (7th Cir.1991).
The opinion
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree fully with the majority but would go on- to urge appointment of counsel on remand. The five-factor analysis of Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885 (7th Cir.1981) (per curiam), strongly suggests such a course. See also Merritt v. Faulkner, 697 F.2d 761, 764 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 434 (1983); McKeever v. Israel, 689 F.2d 1315, 1320-21 (7th Cir.1982). The colorability of plaintiff’s claim, together with his apparent disadvantage in investigating the facts, are particularly noteworthy.