Manley v. Babich et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DOUGLAS L. MANLEY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Case No. 23-cv-3982-DWD
vs. 	)
)
DR. QUANG TRAN, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff 	Douglas 	Manley, 	a 	former 	inmate 	of 	the 	Illinois 	Department 	of
Corrections 	(IDOC) 	brings 	this 	action 	pursuant 	to 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983 	for 	alleged
deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Robinson Correctional Center. 	The
present action was severed from a broader complaint on December 20, 2023, and on April
22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this case signaling his desire to proceed.
(Docs. 1, 9). On May 22, 2024, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s amended complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and he was allowed to proceed on one claim against Dr. Quang Tran,
a dentist. 	(Doc. 10). 	Dr. Tran timely sought summary judgment (Docs. 29, 30), and
advised Plaintiff of his obligation to respond (Doc. 31). 	To date, Plaintiff has not
responded. For reasons explained herein, Dr. Tran’s Motion is granted.
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

F ACTS
This case concerns Plaintiff’s need for dental care while at Robinson Correctional
Center from February 25, 2022, through November 16, 2022. 1 On March 1, 2022, Dr. Tran
reviewed Plaintiff’s dental chart and determined that Plaintiff should be seen for a dental
examination. 	(Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶¶ 21-22; Doc. 30-1 at 280). 	On April 11, 2022,
Plaintiff was seen at nurse sick call for tooth pain, he had pain medication, he was
instructed on how to mitigate pain, and he was referred for a dental appointment. (Id., ¶
23; Doc. 30-1 at 48-50). 	Dr. Tran reviewed the referral on April 21, 2022, prescribed
Amoxicillin for potential tooth decay, and prescribed Motrin for pain. (Id., ¶ 24; Doc. 30-
1 at 280). Tran saw Plaintiff for an examination on April 28, 2022, and determined that
although Plaintiff did not present with acute pain or problems, extractions would be
appropriate. (Id., ¶¶ 25-27; Doc. 30-1 at 280).
On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a grievance about dental care, but Dr. Tran was
not notified of the grievance until September 7, 2022. 	(Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶28).
Plaintiff completed a consent for dental treatment form on August 15, 2022, that indicated
he understood there may not be enough time for him to receive dentures. (Doc. 30-1 at
281). 	On August 15, 2022, Dr. Tran began with the planned extractions, and the
procedure was well-tolerated. (Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 29; Doc. 30-1 at 280). Plaintiff
was prescribed pain medication and he was to be scheduled for future extractions. (Tran
Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 31; Doc. 30-1 at 280). On November 5, 2022, Plaintiff contacted the
1 Plaintiff remained at Robinson beyond November and did not receive dentures before his discharge, but
his last contact with Dr. Tran was November of 2022 and there is no evidence he tried to follow-up with
Dr. Tran after that visit.
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

healthcare unit complaining of persistent pain and he asked when he would be seen
again. (Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 33). A healthcare administrator informed him he was
on the list to be seen but that she did not know when a visit would occur. (Doc. 9-1 at
15). 	On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff reported to nurse sick call for tooth pain, he was
given ibuprofen, and he was referred to the dentist. (Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 36; Doc.
30-1 at 148-150). Dr. Tran performed the second set of extractions on November 16, 2022,
which were well-tolerated. 	(Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 37; Doc. 30-1 at 280). 	Plaintiff
received pain medication and was placed on the list for future treatment. 	(Tran Decl.,
Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 39; Doc. 30-1 at 280). 	Dr. Tran filled out the referral for dentures on
November 16, 2022, but inmates had to wait four months to allow complete healing after
extractions before they could receive dentures. (Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶¶ 40, 41; Doc.
30-1 at 285, 287). Dr. Tran never treated Plaintiff after the November 16, 2022, extractions.
(Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 42). Dr. Tran does not believe that Plaintiff’s condition in any
way deteriorated while he was treating him because Mr. Manley gained weight
throughout the course of treatment. (Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 44).
Dr. Tran did not work full-time at Robinson while Plaintiff was detained there,
and he only went to Robinson as his schedule allowed to provide fill-in coverage. (Tran
Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶¶ 3-5, 7-8). Dr. Tran ceased all work at Robinson on April 19, 2023.
(Id., ¶ 6). Dr. Tran did not control the patient scheduling process and simply saw patients
as they came up on his treatment list. 	(Id., ¶¶ 8-9). 	Jill Martin, a dental assistant at
Robinson from November of 2014-June of 2023, declared that dentists did not have
control over scheduling patients for care. (Martin Decl., Doc. 30-2 at ¶ 2). She indicated
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

that dental assistants like herself were responsible for scheduling, 	that there was a
backlog outside the control of dentists or assistants, and that Dr. Tran had no control over
his treatment lines. (Martin Decl., Doc. 30-2 at ¶¶2-6).
At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he had not sought regular dental care in a
number of years prior to his incarceration. (Manley Dep., Doc. 30-3, pp. 21:19-22:4). Upon
his release from IDOC, he sought dental care and was able to secure an appointment
“within a few months.” 	(Id., p. 27:19-22). 	Plaintiff testified variably about Dr. Tran’s
schedule at Robinson, indicating that Dr. Tran likely came to the prison on Thursdays,
but also that Dr. Tran set his own schedule, must have worked five days a week at
Robinson, promised appointment times, and should not have promised extractions
within a few weeks when it actually took months to be seen. (Id., pp. 33:21-34:5; 38:18-
39:15; 42:10-11; 43:14-44:9).
Plaintiff wrote in his amended complaint and affirmed at his deposition that he
believed dental delays were caused by extreme dental understaffing attributable to
prison administrators not properly following the law or administrative directives about
dental care. (Manley Dep., Doc. 30-3, p. 50:6-14). Plaintiff testified that he did not know
why his dental care was delayed. (Id., pp. 52:23-53:10). But he also testified he did not
get care because he did not get a call pass, and because Dr. Tran did not make himself
available as much as needed. (Id., pp. 55:2-3; 56:17-20).
Plaintiff testified that in response to a grievance, he was notified that dental
treatment lines were long and slow due to dental staffing shortages. (Manley Dep., Doc.
30-3, p. 77:11-14). When he eventually had all of his upper teeth extracted in August of
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 4 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

2022, the pain associated with those teeth was entirely gone. (Manley Dep., Doc. 30-3, p.
108:2-6). The extraction of the lower teeth in November of 2022 alleviated all additional
tooth pain. 	(Id., p. 130:9-12). 	Plaintiff believed based on Dr. Tran’s comments on
November 15, 2022, that he would be seen in a few months for dentures (Id., p. 130:15-
23), but he never saw Dr. Tran again (Id., p. 135:3-6). In total, Plaintiff only saw Dr. Tran
three times. (Id., p. 136:21-23).
In support of the amended complaint, Plaintiff submitted a copy of an August 2022
grievance wherein he complained of his persistent dental pain and lack of care. (Doc. 9-
1 at 11-12). The grievance was submitted August 3, 2022, and a counselor provided Dr.
Tran’s response on September 15, 2022. In response, Dr. Tran indicated that Plaintiff had
teeth extracted on August 15, 2022, and that he had been placed back on the list for
additional extractions. He indicated, “due to Robinson not having a full time dentist on
staff and limited dental coverage, treatment lines are long and slow.” (Id.). The amended
complaint also was accompanied by a November 5, 2022, request slip wherein Plaintiff
said he had been complaining of dental pain for several months but had not yet been
seen. The dental assistant responded, “Mr. Manley, you are scheduled for extractions at
the next dentist availability. I do not know what day that will be. You are now at the top
of the line.” (Doc. 9-1 at 15).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Legal Standards
Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 	F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(a). 	In
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 5 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

determining a summary judgment motion, the Court views the facts in the light most
favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party. Apex
Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
Courts generally cannot resolve factual disputes on a motion for summary judgment. See
Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014) (“[A] judge’s function at summary judgment is
not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
However, a non-movant must do more than rest upon the allegations made in the
complaint to withstand summary judgment. See e.g., Gabrielle M. v. Park Forest-Chi.
Heights, Ill. Sch. Dist. 163, 315 F.3d 817, 822 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[T]o withstand summary
judgment, the non-movant ... may not rely on vague, conclusory allegations.”); see also,
Liu v. T & H Mach., Inc., 191 F.3d 790, 796 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A party must present more
than mere speculation or conjecture to defeat a summary judgment motion.”).
“A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment by acting with subjective
‘deliberate indifference’ to an inmate’s ‘objectively serious’ medical condition.” Reck v.
Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 27 F.4th 473, 483 (7th Cir. 2022). A prison dentist is generally
expected to provide care for an ailment causing serious pain, but an unsubstantiated
disagreement with a dentist’s chosen course of care does not amount to deliberate
indifference. 	See e.g., Dobbey v. Mitchell-Lawshea, 806 F.3d 938, 940 (7th Cir. 2015).
“[L]acking any evidence that the dentist’s treatment plan was obviously inadequate, or a
substantial departure from standard practice, [a plaintiff] cannot make out a claim of
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 6 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

deliberate indifference. 	Hoeft v. Kasten, 393 Fed. App’x 394, 396 (7th Cir. 2010)
(unpublished).
In order to prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference, a prisoner who brings an
Eighth Amendment challenge of constitutionally deficient medical care must satisfy a
two-part test. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The
first consideration is whether the prisoner has an “objectively serious medical condition.”
Arnett, 658 F.3d at 750; accord, Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). The second
consideration is if the prisoner has demonstrated subjective indifference to his situation.
The plaintiff need not show the individual “literally ignored” his complaint, but that the
individual was aware of the condition and either knowingly or recklessly disregarded it.
Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 524 (7th Cir. 2008). “Something more than negligence or
even malpractice is required” to prove deliberate indifference. Pyles, 771 F.3d at 409.
Deliberate indifference involves “intentional or reckless conduct, not mere negligence.”
Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Gayton, 593 F.3d at 620).
In addition to refusing treatment or providing treatment that is inadequate, a
prison medical 	provider may also be liable for deliberate indifference based on
allegations that they needlessly delayed treatment. To demonstrate that a delay caused
a cognizable injury, an inmate must show that the delay either exacerbated his injury or
that it unnecessarily prolonged the pain. 	Thomas v. Martija, 991 F.3d 763, 771 (7th Cir.
2021). In cases where prison officials delayed rather than denied treatment, the plaintiff
must offer verifying medical evidence that the delay (rather than the underlying
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 7 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

condition) caused some degree of harm. Id. at 749, citing Jackson v. Pollion, 733 F.3d 786,
790 (7th Cir. 2013).
B. Analysis
Despite being notified of his obligation to respond to the motion for summary
judgment, Plaintiff did not file a response. 	The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to
respond as an admission of the facts set forth in the Defendant’s Statement of Material
Facts to the extent the facts are supported by record evidence. L OCAL R ULE 56.1(f), (g).
Plaintiff’s failure to respond does not lead to automatic judgment for the movant, and the
Court will still assess the allegations and evidence to determine if judgment is proper as
a matter of law. See e.g., Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2012).
In this case, Plaintiff faulted Dr. Tran for delays in his dental care from February
25, 2022-November of 2022. 	(Doc. 9). 	He was allowed to proceed on Claim 3 on the
premise that Dr. Tran exhibited deliberate indifference to his need for dental care. (Doc.
10). 	The evidence submitted shows that Dr. Tran first considered Plaintiff’s dental
situation in early March of 2022 during a chart review at which time he did not deem it
emergent, but felt it was appropriate to schedule Plaintiff to be seen. (Tran Decl., Doc.
30-1 at ¶¶ 21-22). Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that his situation was an emergency,
and thus the prison’s administrative directives mandated priority dental care, but he
never submitted any evidence to substantiate the assertion that his situation was an
emergency. (Doc. 9 at ¶¶ 13, 31). 2 When Plaintiff reported to the general sick call process
2 Plaintiff asserts without support that his dental situation fell within “category 1” of an attachment to the
administrative directives on dental care, which would correlate with an “emergency treatment” need.
(Doc. 9 at ¶ 13; Doc. 9-1 at 10). 	However, Dr. Tran reviewed Plaintiff’s chart on March 1, 2022, and
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 8 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

for dental pain in early April of 2022, he was counseled on how to use pain medication
and to modify his behavior to mitigate pain until he could be seen. (Doc. 30-1 at 48-50).
Dr. Tran was informed of the situation on April 21, 2022, and suspecting an infection he
prescribed Amoxicillin and until Plaintiff could be seen. (Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 24).
Dr. Tran first saw Plaintiff on April 28, 2022, at which point they concurred that
the plan was removal of all of Plaintiff’s teeth so that he could be fitted with dentures.
(Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶¶ 25-27; Doc. 30-3 at 272). At the visit, Dr. Tran did not perceive
acute pain, and he did not view Plaintiff’s condition as an emergency. (Id.). At the visit,
Dr. Tran continued Plaintiff on pain medication, and he was to be placed on the list for
extractions. (Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 26-27).
At his deposition, Plaintiff tried to attribute scheduling responsibilities to Dr. Tran,
but his testimony faltered on this topic throughout the course of his deposition. (Manley
Dep., Doc. 30-3 at pp. 33:21-34:5; 38:18-39:15; 42:10-11; 43:14-44:9). Dr. Tran only filled in
at Robinson as available, while also serving as a full-time dentist at another prison. (Tran
Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶¶ 3-4, 7-8). Dr. Tran did not have control over the management of the
dental treatment lists and did not schedule patients himself. (Id., ¶ 8). In the complaint
and at his deposition, Plaintiff also attributed dental delays to the prison administration,
whom he alleges chronically understaffed the dental department. (Doc. 9 at ¶¶ 27-29, 33;
Manley Dep., Doc. 30-3, p. 50:6-14). 	Dental assistant Jill Martin declared that dentists,
including Dr. Tran, did not have control over patient scheduling. (Martin Decl., Doc. 30-
determined that the situation was not emergent. (Tran. Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶¶ 21-22). Even when one of
Plaintiff’s teeth became infected and Dr. Tran evaluated him in person, Dr. Tran still opined that Plaintiff’s
situation did not require emergency treatment. (Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶¶ 25-27).
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 9 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

2 at ¶¶ 2-3). Plaintiff has not presented any evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute
about Dr. Tran’s scheduling control.
On August 15, 2022, Dr. Tran performed the first set of extractions, which went
well and alleviated pain. 	(Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶¶ 29-31; Manley Dep., Doc. 30-3 at
108:2-6). Dr. Tran referred Plaintiff to be placed on the list for the remaining extractions.
(Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶ 31). Plaintiff complained on November 5, 2022, that he was
still in pain and had not been seen a second time, though there is no evidence Dr. Tran
was ever aware of this complaint. 	Plaintiff was informed that he was at the top of the
treatment list at that point, but that local staff did not know when treatment would occur
next. (Doc. 9-1 at 15). On November 16, 2022, Dr. Tran performed the second group of
extractions, which mitigated all pain. (Manley Dep., Doc. 30-3 at p. 130:9-12). Before both
sets of extractions, Plaintiff signed consent forms indicating there may not be time for
dentures to be prepared. (Doc. 30-1 at 281, 283).
Dr. Tran attests that a patient needed to wait at least four months post-extraction
for dentures, but he completed the dental referral paperwork for Plaintiff on November
16, 2022. Dr. Tran never saw Plaintiff again while Plaintiff was at Robinson, and there is
no evidence that any complications from the extractions or with the denture process were
reported to Dr. Tran. (Tran Decl., Doc. 30-1 at ¶¶40-41; Doc. 30-1 at 285-287).
Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, complaint, and exhibits, all show frustration with
the dental process, but none of this evidence demonstrates that Dr. Tran knew of a serious
risk to Plaintiff’s health and deliberately disregarded it. The evidence also does not show
that the delays in treatment caused Plaintiff any discrete harm. 	As Dr. Tran noted,
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 10 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

Plaintiff did not lose weight during the relevant timeframe. Plaintiff indicated that the
extractions alleviated all pain. Although Plaintiff complained that Dr. Tran should have
seen him sooner, he does not have any actual evidence that Dr. Tran controlled his
schedule or had any authority over the staffing situation. Plaintiff also characterized his
dental situation as an emergency at his deposition, but Dr. Tran noted no acute distress
during their encounters, did not characterize the situation as an emergency, and provided
medications when relevant to manage pain and infections during the intervening
months. 	The dental care situation at Robinson arguably may have been deficient, but
there is not any evidence sufficient to show that Dr. Tran was personally responsible for
these delays, thought they may cause harm, or failed to provide Plaintiff with appropriate
care when he saw him three times from February of 2022 to November of 2022.
Accordingly, Dr. Tran’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) will be granted.
DISPOSITION
Defendant Tran’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED in full.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2026 	/s/ David W. Dugan
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 11 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>

If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal with this
Court within thirty days of the entry of judgment. F ED. R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1)(A). If Plaintiff
does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of
the outcome of the appeal. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v.
Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir.
1999). He must list each of the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal and his
motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 24(a)(1)(C). A proper
and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-
day appeal deadline. F ED. R. APP . P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more
than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot
be extended.
Case 3:23-cv-03982-DWD Document 32 Filed 03/11/26 Page 12 of 12 Page ID
#<pageID>