Jarvis v. Pullman

Petitioner was informed, following examinations conducted at the dental clinic of the correctional facility where he was an inmate, that three of his posterior teeth were severely decayed and required either extraction or root canal therapy followed by the installation of crowns. Petitioner refused to have the teeth extracted. In January 2001, he filed an inmate grievance *843proceeding, demanding that his teeth be permanently restored either by personnel at the facility’s dental clinic or by an outside dentist. The grievance was denied on the ground that the sole dental treatment available to…