Frene v. Mattis

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Robert Roy Frene
v. 	Civil No. 18-cv-577-PB
New Hampshire Department of
Corrections Medical and Forensic
Services Director Paula Mattis
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Robert Roy Frene is an inmate at the New
Hampshire State Prison for Men (“NHSP”). 	In this action, he is
suing the New Hampshire department of Corrections Medical and
Forensic Services Director, Paula Mattis, for violating his
Eighth Amendment rights by providing him with inadequate dental
care. 	Before this magistrate judge for a Report and
Recommendation is the defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6)
this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. 	Plaintiff has not filed an objection.1
Motion to Dismiss Standard
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), the court must “accept as true all well-pleaded facts
1On March 7, 2019, the court issued an order: (1) noting the
plaintiff’s failure to respond to the defendant’s motion to
dismiss; (2) extending the time for him to do so; and (3)
informing him that if he did not respond to the motion, the
court would rule on the unopposed motion. 	Plaintiff did not
file an objection or otherwise respond to the March 7 order.
See Mar. 7, 2019 Order.
Case 1:18-cv-00577-PB Document 10 Filed 05/15/19 Page 1 of 5

2
alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences
therefrom in the [plaintiff’s] favor.” 	Lemelson v. Bloomberg
L.P., 903 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). 	Then, when focusing “on the non-
speculative, non-conclusory facts and reasonable inferences
implied by those facts, [the court must] ask whether it is
plausible, as opposed to merely possible, that [the] plaintiff’s
complaint narrates a claim for relief.” 	Id.
Background
Frene’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) in this case states, in its
entirety:
I. Due to my mental and physical state of well being I
request injunction for relief.
II. I have been gravely mistreated and need outside
medical and dental care.
III. I have 9 impacted teeth that need removing and
have been in this state of pain for 14 months.
Compl. (Doc. No. 1, at 1).2
Discussion
Defendant now moves to dismiss Frene’s lawsuit on the
grounds that Frene has failed to assert sufficient facts to
state an Eighth Amendment claim upon which relief might be
2Frene’s request for injunctive relief was denied on March
12, 2019. 	See Mar. 12, 2019 Order (Doc. No. 9) (approving Feb.
19, 2019 R&R (Doc. No. 8)).
Case 1:18-cv-00577-PB Document 10 Filed 05/15/19 Page 2 of 5

3
granted. 	Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that the defendant
violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment by failing to extract his bad and painful
teeth for a period of fourteen months.
An Eighth Amendment claim challenging the adequacy of
prison health care services, including dental care services, has
both an objective and a subjective component. 	See Wilson v.
Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991); Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 480
(7th Cir. 2005) (“‘dental care is one of the most important
medical needs of inmates’” (citation omitted)). “[T]he
deprivation alleged must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently
serious,’” and a prison official’s “act or omission must result
in the denial of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities.’” 	Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)
(citations omitted). 	The objective component may be
established by allegations regarding an unmet serious medical or
dental health need, “that has been diagnosed by a physician as
mandating treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a lay
person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s
attention.” 	Miranda-Rivera v. Toledo-Dávila, 813 F.3d 64, 74 (1st
Cir. 2016); see also Board, 394 F.3d at 480 (“dental pain
accompanied by various degrees of attenuated medical harm may
constitute an objectively serious medical need” (citing cases
regarding, among other things, “deterioration of teeth due to
lack of treatment”)). 	The subjective component of an Eighth
Case 1:18-cv-00577-PB Document 10 Filed 05/15/19 Page 3 of 5

4
Amendment claim requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the
defendant prison official acted with deliberate indifference to
the plaintiff’s health or safety. 	See Miranda-Rivera, 813 F.3d at
74. 	“Deliberate indifference requires (1) that ‘the official . .
. be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that
a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” and (2) that he draw
that inference.’” 	Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837).
The court assumes, without deciding, that plaintiff’s
assertion that he suffered dental pain for many months
adequately alleges that his impacted teeth were unhealthy enough
to create a serious medical need. 	To satisfy the subjective
component of his Eighth Amendment claim, Frene must also allege
facts which show that Mattis was aware of his need for dental
care and, disregarding his serious dental needs, denied him
necessary dental care or treatment.
The complaint does not state facts to demonstrate that
Mattis was actually aware of Frene’s serious dental condition
and need for dental care, or what role Mattis played in denying
him that care. 	Without such allegations, Frene has failed to
adequately allege that Mattis denied him care with deliberate
indifference to his serious dental condition. 	Thus, plaintiff
has failed to state a claim against the sole named defendant to
this action for the denial of constitutionally adequate dental
care during his incarceration at the NHSP.
Case 1:18-cv-00577-PB Document 10 Filed 05/15/19 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should grant
the defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6). 	Any objection
to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days
of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The
14-day period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to file a
specific written objection to the Report and Recommendation
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the
district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno,
842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 15, 2019
cc: 	Robert Roy Frene, pro se
Lawrence Edelman, Esq.
Case 1:18-cv-00577-PB Document 10 Filed 05/15/19 Page 5 of 5