Home      Login

Abstract: 

Jay D. Shulman argues that correctional dental care litigation often fails not because constitutional standards are unclear, but because most incarcerated plaintiffs lack timely legal counsel. Under the PLRA’s exhaustion and early screening regime, systemic claims—chronic understaffing, long waitlists, and capacity-driven “extraction-only” outcomes—are typically dismissed as conclusory before discovery can uncover institutional evidence. Dental care, with clear clinical benchmarks and recurring delay patterns, illustrates how counsel functions as a gatekeeper to discovery and expert testimony. Using Mounce v. Doe and Starr v. Alameda County Jail, Shulman shows that recruited counsel rarely guarantees plaintiff wins, but can make institutional causes of delay visible and adjudicable.

Keywords: Correctional Dental Care; Prison Litigation Reform Act; Deliberate Indifference; Recruited Counsel; Discovery; Institutional Capacity

Affiliations:  1: Texas A&M College of Dentistry.