Graham v. Koenig
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:23-cv-00263
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 20
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Graham v. Koenig, Judge Provinzino granted summary judgment for prison dental defendants, dismissing incarcerated plaintiff Alonzo Graham's Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims with prejudice.
Incarcerated individuals who file civil rights claims (42 U.S.C. § 1983) alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical or dental needs. This opinion illustrates the evidentiary burden such plaintiffs face at summary judgment: conclusory allegations in a verified complaint, without specific record citations, are insufficient to defeat a well-supported motion, even for pro se litigants. It also affects incarcerated plaintiffs who seek to control access to their own medical records after placing their health condition at issue in litigation.
What happened
Graham v. Koenig, No. 23-cv-263, is a civil rights lawsuit filed by Alonzo J. Graham, a person incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Oak Park Heights, against Dr. James Koenig, a prison dentist, and Kathy Reid, a nurse supervisor. Graham alleged that in 2017, Dr. Koenig forcibly removed one of his teeth without adequate consent, refused to provide pain medication or antibiotics afterward, and then used improper dental tools during a teeth cleaning — causing lasting damage including exposed tooth roots and constant pain. Graham also claimed that Reid failed to respond adequately to his grievances about these events. Graham argued these actions amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, which the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits as cruel and unusual punishment.
Defendants moved for summary judgment — a request that the court decide the case in their favor without a trial because, they argued, there were no genuine factual disputes to resolve. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that summary judgment should be granted and Graham's claims dismissed. Graham objected, arguing that his verified complaint should have been treated as sworn testimony creating factual disputes, that the magistrate judge drew inferences in the defendants' favor, and that an expert dentist hired by defendants should have been excluded because he was biased and had improperly accessed Graham's dental records. Graham also sought to introduce new witness declarations and raised, for the first time, that defendants had ignored his discovery requests.
Judge Provinzino adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Graham cannot refile these claims. The court found that Graham's allegations were largely conclusory — that is, they stated conclusions without pointing to specific evidence — and that defendants had submitted records directly contradicting key claims, such as notes showing Dr. Koenig used an ultrasonic scaler, not a drill, during the cleaning. The court rejected Graham's challenge to the expert witness, finding no evidence of bias and concluding that Graham had authorized release of his dental records to defendants. The court also refused to consider new declarations Graham submitted with his objections, because that evidence had not been presented to the magistrate judge, and dismissed his discovery complaint as raised too late.
The detailed version
- Graham v. Koenig · No. 0:23-cv-00263
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Alonzo J. Graham, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), is an incarcerated person at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Oak Park Heights (MCF-OPH). He filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows individuals to sue state or local officials for violating their constitutional rights while acting under color of law. Graham alleged that two defendants — Dr. James Koenig, a dentist at MCF-OPH, and Kathy Reid, the RN Supervisor — violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Factual Allegations
Graham alleged two principal incidents in February and March 2017:
1. Tooth extraction (February 2017): Graham had an infected tooth. Dr. Koenig recommended extraction as the "only choice." Graham did not want the tooth removed, but the extraction proceeded. Dr. Koenig did not stitch the extraction site, and Graham developed a painful dry socket. He requested pain medication and antibiotics but claims Dr. Koenig refused.
2. Teeth cleaning (March 2017): Graham alleges Dr. Koenig used a "drill" to clean his teeth without a numbing agent because the dentist's usual cleaning tool was broken. Graham says he told Dr. Koenig he was in pain and tried to stop the procedure, but Dr. Koenig continued. Graham claims the cleaning stripped tooth enamel, exposed tooth roots, and dislodged a filling, ultimately requiring additional extractions and causing ongoing pain.
Graham also alleged that Reid failed to respond, or took excessive time to respond, to his grievances about these dental incidents.
Graham's claims against the Warden of Oak Park Heights were dismissed with prejudice earlier in the litigation on July 31, 2024, leaving only the claims against Dr. Koenig and Reid.
Motions Before the Court
Defendants moved for summary judgment — a procedural mechanism under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by which a party asks the court to rule in its favor based on the undisputed record, without a trial. Graham filed a motion in limine (a pretrial motion to exclude evidence) seeking to bar the expert testimony of Dr. Brian Kajewski, a licensed dentist retained by defendants.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 29, 2025, recommending that defendants' summary judgment motion be granted, Graham's motion in limine be denied, and all claims be dismissed with prejudice. Graham filed timely objections (the court treated them as timely despite postmark issues). Graham also filed a second motion in limine seeking to introduce two new declarations from non-parties.
Judge Provinzino reviewed de novo — meaning fresh, without deference — the portions of the R&R to which Graham specifically objected, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3).
Analysis and Rulings
Motion to Introduce New Declarations (Second Motion in Limine)
The court denied Graham's motion to introduce two new declarations. Because these declarations were not part of the record before Magistrate Judge Micko, they were outside the scope of the district court's review of the R&R. The court cited the principle that a party may not introduce new evidence or arguments at the objection stage that were not raised before the magistrate judge, noting this rule prevents parties from effectively getting two rounds of judicial review.
Objection 1: Failure to Treat Verified Complaint as Affidavit
Graham argued that Magistrate Judge Micko failed to treat his verified amended complaint as a sworn affidavit for summary judgment purposes — a legally cognizable position under Eighth Circuit precedent (Berry v. Doss, 900 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2018)).
The court overruled this objection for two reasons. First, the R&R repeatedly referenced Graham's complaint, indicating it was considered. Second, even treating the verified complaint as an affidavit, a conclusory, self-serving affidavit cannot, standing alone, defeat a well-supported summary judgment motion. The court noted that Graham cited his verified complaint only once in his opposition brief without pointing to specific allegations, and pro se status does not relieve a litigant of the obligation to identify specific record evidence in opposing summary judgment.
Objection 2: Improper Drawing of Inferences in Defendants' Favor
Graham argued that Magistrate Judge Micko improperly drew inferences in defendants' favor. The court overruled this objection.
On summary judgment, courts must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — but only where a genuine factual dispute exists. The court found no genuine dispute here. As a key example: Graham alleged Dr. Koenig used a "drill" during the March 2017 cleaning. Defendants submitted Dr. Koenig's contemporaneous clinical notes showing he used an "ultrasonic scaler" — a device using water and high-frequency vibration. Critically, the court found that Graham's own complaint supported the defendants' account, because Graham described water spraying into his eyes during the cleaning, which is consistent with an ultrasonic scaler and inconsistent with a drill. Under Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), where one party's account is blatantly contradicted by the record, the court need not adopt that version.
Graham also claimed defendants "illegally and maliciously altered" his medical records, but the court found this was a conclusory allegation unsupported by the record — one Graham himself acknowledged was unproven at the summary judgment stage.
The court also rejected Graham's assertion of bias based on Magistrate Judge Micko's description of the dental work as occurring "nearly a decade ago" (rather than exactly eight years ago), finding this neither inaccurate nor indicative of bias.
Objection 3: Denial of Motion in Limine (Expert Testimony)
Graham sought to exclude the expert declarations of Dr. Brian Kajewski, a licensed dentist who at the relevant time worked for the Minnesota Department of Human Services at a different correctional facility and later became Chief Dentist for the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Bias argument
Graham argued Dr. Kajewski was biased due to a professional relationship with Dr. Koenig. The court found no basis for this: Dr. Koenig retired in 2021; Dr. Kajewski did not become Chief Dentist until 2024; and Dr. Kajewski stated under oath that he did not know Dr. Koenig and did not recall ever meeting him.
Bad faith argument
Graham cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(h), which authorizes sanctions for declarations submitted in bad faith. The court declined to address this argument because Graham did not raise it before Magistrate Judge Micko — it was a new argument impermissible at the objection stage. Regardless, the court found no bad faith.
Improper access to dental records
Graham argued he never authorized Dr. Kajewski to view his dental records and had "terminated" any prior authorization. The court rejected this argument, tracing the authorization history: Graham authorized release of his dental records to Dr. Koenig in June 2024; he attempted to revoke that authorization but filed a second, broader authorization to "Defendants" in July 2024 in response to a court order on defendants' motion to compel. Dr. Kajewski was not disclosed as an expert until October 2024, after the July 2024 authorization. A purported January 2025 termination of authorization came after records had already been produced to defendants pursuant to Graham's own authorization. The court also noted that by placing his dental health at issue in the litigation, Graham could not unilaterally block defendants' access to records directly relevant to his claims.
Finally, consistent with Magistrate Judge Micko's recommendation, the court denied the motion in limine as moot in any event, because the recommendation to dismiss the claims stood regardless of whether Dr. Kajewski's declarations were considered.
Objection 4: Discovery Deficiencies
Graham argued defendants "largely ignored" his interrogatories and document requests. The court overruled this objection as both procedurally improper and untimely. The proper mechanism to address discovery non-compliance was a motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B); Graham never filed one. The deadline for such a motion was September 20, 2024 — over a year before Graham raised the issue.
Disposition
Judge Provinzino overruled all of Graham's objections, adopted the R&R in its entirety, denied both motions in limine, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.