A federal judge has declined to dismiss an incarcerated man’s claim that a prison dentist retaliated against him for filing a complaint about his allegedly substandard dental care – to the point of making threats and acting aggressively toward him during an appointment.

LaRon Antonio Donald, who resides at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, sued multiple prison officials over their alleged indifference to his serious tooth pain. He also sued Douglas Pearson, a dentist, for retaliating against him once Pearson found out Donald had filed a grievance about the allegedly deficient treatment Pearson was providing.

On Aug. 18, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore agreed to dismiss the majority of Donald’s complaint, finding Donald had not sufficiently linked the prison officials’ actions to any constitutional violation. However, Moore agreed that Donald may proceed with his claim that Pearson reacted menacingly in response to Donald exercising his right to file a grievance.

“Defendant Pearson’s attempt to paint the encounter as ‘nothing more than a disagreement’ about Plaintiff’s recommended treatment plan is simply unavailing,” Moore wrote.

Donald, who is representing himself from prison, claimed that he began experiencing discomfort in his teeth in April 2021. Pearson first examined him in May and allegedly agreed Donald had a few teeth that needed filling. Donald did not receive treatment at that time, but had an appointment scheduled for August.

During the second appointment, Pearson allegedly said Donald’s cavities “can go longer before I’m going to fill them.” Pearson also denied a request for a mouth guard, reportedly because it could cause more damage.

In October, Donald filed a grievance with the prison about Pearson’s alleged lack of action, and he also sought another appointment for his severe pain. He continued to submit grievances and appointment requests, calling the pain so extreme that he “can’t think.” At one point, Donald spit out a tooth fragment while eating, but he did not label the situation an emergency because prison staff told him he needed to be “bleeding or swelling.”

In late December, Pearson saw Donald again. According to Donald’s lawsuit, Pearson allegedly pulled out a grievance and demanded to know if Donald had written it. 

“Do you think it was wise to write something like this when I’m the one who’s going to perform a surgical procedure on you?” Pearson allegedly said. He then forced Donald to read aloud from the grievance, which made Donald feel “humiliated.”

Pearson reportedly continued to berate Donald about “tell(ing) me how to do my job” and informed Donald he would pull three of his teeth. Donald asked to see which teeth would be pulled, prompting Pearson to forcefully shove a mirror into Donald’s hands. Donald allegedly learned Pearson wanted to extract a tooth that was not causing problems.

“Plaintiff became concerned that Defendant Pearson was attempting to pull his good teeth and not fix his cavities with fillings to punish him for filing grievances,” Donald wrote.

Donald then left the room, with Pearson attempting to block his exit.

In moving to dismiss the lawsuit, Pearson’s attorneys argued Pearson was not deliberately indifferent to Donald’s serious medical needs, but rather had a different course of treatment in mind. As for Donald’s allegation of retaliation, they asserted Donald was actually the aggressor during the appointment. Moreover, Donald had not satisfied a key component of his retaliation claim: showing Pearson’s actions deterred Donald from filing future grievances.

During a November 2022 conference, U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter expressed concern that Donald had still not received the necessary dental care, even after filing suit. He asked the government’s lawyers if they would “facilitate a resolution that would involve getting the Plaintiff – getting his cavity filled, or cavities filled, and addressing maybe his erupting tooth, in a way that doesn’t involve Dr. Pearson.”

He added that if Pearson himself had already acknowledged Donald needed dental care, Donald “shouldn’t be sitting around for a year and a half while we work on motions to figure out where we can get some care.”

Neureiter subsequently recommended allowing only Donald’s retaliation claim to proceed. Donald had credibly alleged Pearson responded threateningly to the filing of a grievance, and it was clear that prison employees may not retaliate in response to a complaint.

“Factual development may reveal that Mr. Donald was, in fact, the one who became aggressive during the dental appointment, or that Defendant Pearson never engaged in any retaliatory action,” Neureiter explained, but that evidence would need to come later.

Moore, the district judge, upheld that recommendation. He noted Donald was not required to show Pearson’s alleged conduct deterred him from filing further grievances, only that Pearson’s conduct would deter a person of “ordinary firmness” from doing so. He believed Donald’s allegations satisfied that test.

In February, three months after Neureiter’s intervention, Donald reported that he had seen a different dentist, who extracted multiple teeth. He characterized the procedure as unnecessarily brutal, but that he was “happy to have something done finally.”

The case is Donald v. Pearson et al.