Seventh Circuit Reinstates Illinois Prisoner’s Lawsuit Against Prison Dental Staff
by Matt Clarke
On March 17, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the summary dismissal of a prisoner’s civil rights claims against prison dental staff for deliberate indifference to his serious need for dental care. It let stand the district court’s ruling that a pro se prisoner could not represent a class.
Anthony Boyce was incarcerated at the Western Illinois Correctional Center in July 2022 when he experienced extreme tooth pain. An examining physician found cavities, swollen gums, abscesses and bleeding. He was seen that day by dentist Dr. Francis Catino and dental assistant Ashley Cox.
Catino told Boyce he had a hole in his tooth. Boyce asked to have it filled, to be sent to an off-site specialist and to have his teeth cleaned. Catino told him that he could not get his teeth cleaned at Western and his only option was extraction. Boyce was prescribed an antibiotic and told he would be scheduled to have his cavities filled.
On September 20, 2022, Boyce filed a grievance stating that: he was experiencing severe tooth pain; had been complaining of pain and requesting a cleaning since November 2021; that Cox had told him that neither cleaning nor mouthwash were available through dental at Western; and Catino told him that cleaning was not available and he would have to have the tooth extracted.
On September 26, 2022, Boyce saw Catino and Cox for the extraction. They reiterated that neither cleaning nor mouthwash was available and told him he would not be sent to an off-site specialist. The extraction was rescheduled because Boyce felt ill.
In November 2022, a grievance counselor replying to Boyce’s grievance referenced the rescheduling of the extraction and recommended it be denied as moot. Boyce filed an appeal that was denied on January 30, 2023. A few months later, he filed a pro se federal civil rights action against Catino and Cox alleging deliberate indifference to his need for adequate dental care and moving for class-action status.
Pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A screening, the district court held that “a prisoner bringing a pro se action cannot represent a class of plaintiffs” and denied the motion. Catino and Cox moved for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the events of September 26, 2022, were given as the factual basis of the claims and they occurred six days after the grievance was filed. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action. Aided by Chicago attorneys Timothy B. Leaker and Joshua D. Yount of Mayer Brown LLP, Boyce appealed.
The Seventh Circuit held that the grievance “was centered around the lack of dental care he was receiving” and the extreme pain he was suffering as an ongoing issue. Further, the denial of the grievance was based on events that occurred after it was filed. Therefore, it sufficiently exhausted his claim for deliberate indifference to extreme dental pain per Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010) and Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016).
Further, the fact that Cox was not mentioned by name in the grievance did not render it inadequate as Boyce provided sufficient information for the prison administration to know that his grievance was against dental staff and the grievance investigator determined that Cox and Catino were the staff being referred to in the grievance. Thus, he gave them sufficient notice to pursue this action.
The Court upheld the denial of Boyce’s pro se motion for class certification, holding that “[o]nly experienced counsel with significant resources could provide the level of support necessary to prosecute such a massive suit.” Boyce could not “protect the interests of the class,” as required by F.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4), so he could not represent the class.
The judgment was reversed in part and remanded. Before the Court, Boyce was represented by attorneys Timothy B. Leake and Joshua D. Yount of Mayer Brown LLP in Chicago. See: Boyce v. Cox, 170 F.4th 613 (7th Cir. 2026).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Boyce v. Cox
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 170 F.4th 613 (7th Cir. 2026) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |