Minski v. Lewis

Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 27, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JAMES EDWARD MINSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-3216 (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-03014-JWB-GEB) SONYA LEWIS, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and URIAS, ** District Judge. *** _________________________________ James Edward Minski was a prisoner with tooth pain. Dr. Sonya Lewis, a dentist whose practice includes periodic care at Minski’s prison, treated him. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the * doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. The Honorable David H. Urias, U.S. District Judge, District of New ** Mexico, sitting by designation. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has *** determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 2 She extracted his tooth just under two months after he first complained of tooth pain. But Minski sued Dr. Lewis, alleging she had acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. He complained that she was slow to extract his tooth and approve his requests for pain medication. Minski experienced considerable pain, so he claimed these delays amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted Dr. Lewis’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and dismissed Minski’s case, concluding that he had failed to sufficiently plead either the objective or the subjective component of a deliberate-indifference claim. Minski now appeals the dismissal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we assume that Minski plausibly alleged the objective component, but we conclude that he did not allege the subjective component. We affirm the district court’s dismissal. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background A. Minski experiences tooth pain. Minski is incarcerated at the Winfield Correctional Facility in Kansas. In early May 2023, he began experiencing tooth pain. On May 7, 2023, he filed a Health Services Request Form (or a “sick-call form”). Prison medical staff saw him the next day, and they offered him Tylenol and ibuprofen for his pain, but 2  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 3 he initially declined. 1 Still, they scheduled an appointment for him to see a dentist. Meanwhile, his pain escalated. Within the next week, he twice requested medication. Though he was given a three-day supply twice, on May 18 he received a thirty-day supply of pain medication. B. Minski sees Dr. Lewis. Minski saw Dr. Sonya Lewis on June 6. 2 Dr. Lewis noted that Minski’s teeth were “severely worn . . . due to bruxism”—“worn nearly to [the] pulp.” R. vol. I, at 22. She described the tooth he complained about as “extremely sensitive” and “non-restorable.” Id. She told him that the tooth needed to be extracted and scheduled the procedure for June 20. In the meantime, Dr. Lewis prescribed more pain medication at Minski’s request. Minski asked Dr. Lewis about the risk of infection in his tooth and gum, but she advised him “it would be okay, and not to worry.” Id. at 11. C. Minski waits for medication and an appointment. By June 11, Minski had not received his pain medication, so he sent two request forms to Dr. Lewis over the next week. 1 Minski explains he has liver damage from Hepatitis C and is wary about taking medication that can affect his liver. 2 Dr. Lewis was employed by Centurion of Kansas, LLC, which contracted to provide medical care at the prison. 3  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 4 While he waited for responses, Minski involved other people. On June 19, he asked prison staff to help him get a message to Dr. Lewis. That same day, Minski spoke with his brother, Joseph, who then called the Secretary’s office of the Kansas Department of Corrections to complain about Minski’s difficulty receiving dental care. Joseph was told that someone else would contact him about it—and the next day or so, someone did. 3 On June 20, Minski again spoke with prison staff, who told him that Dr. Lewis would see him the next week. On June 21, Minski submitted another sick-call form requesting pain medication. On June 22, Minski returned for pain medication, and Dr. Lewis saw him later that day. Dr. Lewis noted that Minski had developed an infection in his tooth and gum that required treatment before his tooth could be extracted. She rescheduled the extraction date and prescribed Minski pain medication and an antibiotic. D. Dr. Lewis extracts Minski’s tooth. On July 4, 2023, Dr. Lewis extracted Minski’s tooth, nearly two months after he initially reported tooth pain. Minski did not receive written responses to his requests for pain medication until July 29. He states that during that time, he missed meals, lost sleep, and suffered “both emotional and physical distress.” R. vol. I, at 12. At times, even drinking water caused him pain. 3 Minski’s complaint does not clarify what was said during the return phone call his brother received. Even so, Minski credits his brother’s phone call as the reason he was seen by Dr. Lewis on June 22. 4  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 5 II. Procedural Background Proceeding pro se, Minski sued Dr. Lewis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that she had been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Minski based his claim on the pain he experienced while waiting for Dr. Lewis to extract his tooth. Minski sought compensatory damages of $1,500 for each day between when he reported tooth pain and when his tooth was extracted. He also sought $20,000 in punitive damages, as well as costs and attorney fees, though he did not have an attorney. A. The district court screens Minski’s complaint. When the district court screened Minski’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), it concluded that the complaint alleged negligence, at most. So the court ordered Minski to show good cause why his complaint shouldn’t be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Minski v. Lewis, No. 24-3014-JWL, 2024 WL 1239716, at *4 (D. Kan. Mar. 22, 2024). After Minski responded, the district court ordered the Kansas Department of Corrections to “prepare and file a Martinez [R]eport.” 4 Minski v. Lewis, No. 24-3014-JWL, 2024 WL 2112841, at *1 (D. Kan. May 10, 2024). Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), “authorizes district 4 courts to order prison officials to investigate an inmate’s allegations to determine whether they have any factual or legal basis.” Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 393 n.1 (10th Cir. 2016). 5  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 6 B. The Martinez report verifies some of Minski’s complaint. The Martinez report described Minski’s version of events as “accurate and correct” but “naturally subjective.” R. vol. I, at 76. The report noted that Dr. Lewis “provided dental care to three . . . correctional facilities and was only scheduled to provide dental care at the facility [Minski] was incarcerated at[] once a week.” Id. It stated that though “a June 6, 2023[] extraction of the tooth would probably have resulted in a better outcome, this investigation reveals no evidence to find the defendant [was] deliberately indifferent to [Minski’s] dental care and treatment or that any relevant policies and procedures were not followed.” Id. at 78. After reviewing the Martinez report, the district court concluded Minski had not adequately pleaded either the subjective or objective prongs of a deliberate-indifference claim. Minski v. Lewis, No. 24-3014-JWL, 2024 WL 4634933, at *2–4 (D. Kan. Oct. 31, 2024). The district court ordered Minski to respond to the Martinez report and show good cause why his complaint should not be dismissed. In his response, Minski pointed to his having experienced serious facial swelling because of his infected tooth. He reiterated his view that Dr. Lewis had failed to observe “the terms of the contract between Centurion and the [Kansas Department of Corrections]” and that she had shown an “obvious lack of consideration” for his dental care. R. vol. I, at 136. And he responded to the 6  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 7 Martinez report’s findings about Dr. Lewis’s schedule, insisting his allegations had shown deliberate indifference. The district court then ruled that because there were unresolved factual disputes, Minski’s claim would “survive” the 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) screening. Minski v. Lewis, No. 24-3014-JWL, 2025 WL 294897, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 24, 2025). C. The district court grants Dr. Lewis’s motion to dismiss. With Minski’s complaint still active, Dr. Lewis moved to dismiss it under Rule 12(b)(6). Ultimately, the district court granted Dr. Lewis’s motion. Minski v. Lewis, No. 24-3014-JWB, 2025 WL 3187091, at *6 (D. Kan. Nov. 14, 2025). Though it ruled that Minski had exhausted his administrative remedies, it found he had failed to plausibly allege the objective or subjective component of a deliberate-indifference claim. Id. at *3–6. 1. Objective Component Addressing the objective component, the district court said that Minski’s cited cases featured “considerably more severe” harm than what he had suffered. Id. at *5. The court likened Minski’s injury to the plaintiff’s injury in Greene v. Pollard. Id. at *4–5 (citing 335 F. App’x 612 (7th Cir. 2009)). Both the Greene plaintiff and Minski complained of incessant tooth pain. Id. at *4. In Greene, the Seventh Circuit found that the prisoner’s injury was not sufficiently serious to show deliberate indifference. Id. At least partly on that basis, the court ruled that Minski had failed to allege the objective component. 7  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 8 2. Subjective Component Addressing the subjective component, the district court first focused on the delays in Minski’s treatment. Id. at *5–6. Its analysis concerned “three possible buckets of liability.” Id. at *5. As the court described it, “[t]he first bucket is the delay in seeing a dentist after complaining of pain, that occurred from May 7 and lasted nearly one month to June 6.” Id. The second bucket is “the two-week delay between June 6, when [Minski] first saw Dr. Lewis, and June 20, the date that he was scheduled for his extraction.” Id. at *6. And the third bucket is Dr. Lewis’s “apparent failure . . . to anticipate the possibility of infection in the time period between his first visit on June 6 and his scheduled extraction date.” Id. The court found Dr. Lewis’s actions, as pleaded, during each “bucket” interval were inadequate to state a deliberate-indifference claim. Id. at *5–6. For the first and second intervals, the court concluded that Minski hadn’t alleged the delays resulted from any deliberate indifference by Dr. Lewis. Id. For the third interval, the court concluded that Minski had not alleged “that Dr. Lewis’[s] care fell below the appropriate standard of care for a dentist” or that she knew his tooth would become infected. Id. at *6. With that, his complaint was dismissed. Minski timely appealed. STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and viewing them in the light 8  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 9 most favorable to the plaintiff.” J.H. v. Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Ins. Co., 137 F.4th 1147, 1150 (10th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted). But a plaintiff must allege “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Mere ‘labels and conclusions’” are not enough. Brown v. City of Tulsa, 124 F.4th 1251, 1263 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). We hold a pro se litigant’s pleadings to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers, but we do not “assume the role of advocate.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). DISCUSSION On appeal, Minski maintains that he adequately pleaded both the objective and the subjective components of his deliberate-indifference claim. “The Eighth Amendment prohibits officials from acting with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical need.” 5 Lamb v. Norwood, 899 F.3d 1159, 1161–62 (10th Cir. 2018). “Deliberate indifference has both an objective 5 Though Dr. Lewis was employed by a private company and not the state, she’s a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because a physician under contract to provide medical services to state-prison inmates acts under color of state law for § 1983 purposes. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 55–56 (1988). 9  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 10 and subjective component.” Est. of Lockett ex rel. Lockett v. Fallin, 841 F.3d 1098, 1112 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 1999)). “[T]he focus of the objective component is the seriousness of the plaintiff’s alleged harm, while the focus of the subjective component is the mental state of the defendant with respect to the risk of that harm.” Prince v. Sheriff of Carter Cnty., 28 F.4th 1033, 1044 (10th Cir. 2022). To satisfy the objective component, a plaintiff must show that the medical need was “sufficiently serious,” meaning that “the condition has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Fallin, 841 F.3d at 1112 (citation modified). We assume, without deciding, that Minski adequately pleaded the objective component. To adequately plead the subjective component, “the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew that the plaintiff faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk[] by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Fallin, 841 F.3d at 1112 (citation modified); cf. DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 975 (10th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that “[b]ecause it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove another person’s actual state of mind,” a plaintiff can survive summary judgment with “circumstantial evidence” of an official’s knowledge). 10  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 11 On appeal, Minski addresses the district court’s three “buckets” of possible liability, but he has not alleged the subjective component of deliberate indifference apart from the delay. For the first two intervals, Minski failed to plead facts connecting Dr. Lewis to the delays. Cf. Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (“In order for liability to arise under § 1983, a defendant’s direct personal responsibility for the claimed deprivation of a constitutional right must be established.” (citing Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1993))). For the first interval (May 7 to June 6), Minski says that he “did attribute his pain and the length of time to Dr. Lewis,” despite the district court’s contrary finding. 6 Opening Br. at 23. And for the second interval (June 6 to June 20), 7 Minski says that he has consistently claimed this delay was caused by Dr. Lewis’s deliberate indifference. Id. But his complaint does not explain why he claims these delays were Dr. Lewis’s fault. He does not allege that Dr. Lewis was responsible for the time it took to get his first appointment, 6 On appeal, Minski contends that he “was never told a date he would be seen by a dentist before the day it happened.” Opening Br. at 22. Yet his complaint acknowledges his dental appointment was scheduled when he was first seen by medical staff on May 8, 2023. R. vol. I, at 10. More importantly, Minski does not clarify how this fact shows Dr. Lewis consciously disregarded his health or safety. 7 The district court’s time frame for the “second bucket” is June 6 until June 20, when the extraction was originally scheduled. Minski, 2025 WL 3187091, at *6. But in his opening brief, Minski addresses this delay as ending on June 22, when Dr. Lewis saw him. 11  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 12 nor does he identify why his medication was delayed. Altogether, his complaint makes no allegations from which we might infer that Dr. Lewis caused the delays. Minski claims the district court omitted allegations about Dr. Lewis’s delayed responses to his requests for pain medication and his attempts to reach her. But Minski does not demonstrate how these facts are relevant. Though Minski alleged that his requests were not promptly responded to, Dr. Lewis’s part in the delay remains unclear. On appeal, Minski insists that the delays were Dr. Lewis’s fault. But Minski’s insistence cannot satisfy his pleading burden. See, e.g., Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). Because Minski’s complaint fails to plausibly allege that Dr. Lewis caused the first two delays, Minski has failed to establish the subjective component during these intervals. 8 8 Minski also relies on filings outside his complaint, including the Martinez report. A district court may consider a Martinez report when a complaint “challenges a prison’s policies or established procedures and the Martinez report’s description of the policies or procedures remains undisputed after plaintiff has an opportunity to respond.” Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1186 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hall, 935 F.2d at 1112). To the extent Minski’s complaint challenged the prison’s policies or established procedures, it did so only in relation to Centurion’s contract with the Kansas Department of Corrections. The Martinez report found “no evidence . . . that any relevant policies and procedures were not followed.” R. vol. I, at 78. Minski challenged the Martinez report’s findings about Dr. Lewis’s scheduling and policy compliance when given the opportunity to respond, and he reiterates these objections on appeal. Because Minski disputes the Martinez report’s findings, (footnote continued) 12  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 13 For the third bucket (the possibility of infection), Minski argues that Dr. Lewis demonstrated subjective deliberate indifference by “dismissing his concerns [about] infection.” Opening Br. at 24. He argues that Dr. Lewis “made a conscious decision” not to order antibiotics to prevent infection. Id. at 25 (emphasis omitted). Minski argues that the district court did not consider his allegations that he had “asked about the possibility of infection and receiving antibiotics, and was told by Dr. Lewis it was okay, [and] not to worry,” and that his mouth, jaw, and face began to swell “between the June 6 examination and the June 22 examination.” Id. at 22. On appeal, he argues Dr. Lewis knew that, because of his tooth’s condition, it was at a high risk of becoming infected. Even if this inference could be drawn from his complaint, Minski does not allege Dr. Lewis knew he would most likely suffer an infection and chose to ignore this reality when she scheduled his extraction. Minski relies on Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010), to argue Dr. Lewis’s delay in treating his infection establishes the subjective component. There, the Seventh Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment to a jail doctor and jail nurse on a prisoner’s deliberate-indifference claim we cannot look to the Martinez report, or Minski’s other filings, to resolve factual disputes about Dr. Lewis’s policy compliance. See Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d 286, 290 (10th Cir. 1993) (explaining that on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “the district court may not look to the Martinez report, or any other pleading outside the complaint itself, . . . to resolve factual disputes.”). 13  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 14 regarding tooth pain. Id. at 437–38. They had not referred the plaintiff to a dentist, though they could have. Id. at 441–42. Instead, there was evidence to suggest the doctor and nurse had knowingly chosen “an easy but ineffective course of treatment” while awaiting the plaintiff’s transfer, after which they would no longer be responsible for his care. Id. at 437–38, 441–43. Berry does not help Minski. Unlike in Minski’s case, the factual allegations in Berry (which came to the Seventh Circuit in a different procedural posture) showed a doctor and nurse had knowingly refused to treat the plaintiff’s pain. Id. at 441–43. But Minski does not allege Dr. Lewis refused to treat his pain. He alleges only that Dr. Lewis made a medical judgment that Minski was unlikely to suffer any infection and that she scheduled the extraction accordingly. We have long noted that “the subjective component is not satisfied, absent an extraordinary degree of neglect, where a doctor merely exercises h[er] considered medical judgment.” Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir. 2006). And we agree with the district court that “Minski does not allege that Dr. Lewis’[s] care fell below the appropriate standard of care for a dentist.” Minski, 2025 WL 3187091, at *6. From Minski’s allegations, it appears prison medical staff and Dr. Lewis worked within the prison’s constraints to get him the care he needed, even if it did not happen as quickly as Minski hoped. 14  Appellate Case: 25-3216 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2026 Page: 15 Minski has not plausibly alleged a violation based on any interval outlined by the district court. Because Minski cannot satisfy the subjective component, his deliberate-indifference claim fails. CONCLUSION Though we assume Minski satisfied the objective component, we affirm the district court’s decision based on his failure to allege the subjective component. Entered for the Court Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge 15