Jerry Flanory, 58, of Flint, Michigan filed a lawsuit against prison officials a few years ago. It was dismissed as ‘frivolous’. The Federal Appeals Court has reinstated his lawsuit against the officials at Newberry prison in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Jerry Flanory contends that not being allowed toothpaste for almost a year was ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.
Never-mind that Jerry Flanory was sent to prison for five years for assault ( I’m sure the victim would say that was cruel and unusual, too ), he wants at least three hundred and fifty thousand dollars — that’s $350,000.00 for developing a gum disease and having to have one lower left tooth removed!
Flanory maintains the dispute started over his education. Prison officials wanted him to take G.E.D. classes; Flanory already had a G.e.D. and also a diploma from a community college. It took almost a year for the prison to verify this. Flanory says as punishment, he lost his indigent status, forcing him to buy his own toothpaste. He insists he could not afford it. Kind of brings to mind that old saying “crime doesn’t pay.” This case might disprove that.
Jerry Flanory: Ex-Con Can Sue Over No Toothpaste
By allowing the lawsuit to go forward, the appeals court offered us this:
The lack of “toothpaste for 337 days and resulting health problems amount to more than a mere inconvenience or a harmless deprivation of hygiene products.”
And this:
“This court has found dental health to be of great importance,” a three-judge panel said, citing a past decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Flanory was paroled last December after serving 5 years for the assault and is acting as his own lawyer.
Fine — perhaps Jerry Flanory should have been provided with free toothpaste — we give our criminals everything else, so what’s a tube of toothpaste? What about all those stories we hear of convicts trading contraband? What about trading a candy bar or pack of smokes for toothpaste? Was there really no way possible for Flanory to brush his teeth?
What if he hadn’t assaulted someone and been behind bars — he would have been a free man and able to buy cases of the stuff is he desired to do so.
Instead of Jerry Flanory using up court time and and wasting money with his get rich off the law abiding taxpayers scheme, he should be giving speeches to kids in high school on what could happen if they choose to become a criminal.
And what about the innocent, hard working folks that cannot afford dental care, that have to choose between toothpaste and a carton of eggs? They end up losing a lot more than one lower tooth.
We have ill people, those with cancer — that lose teeth from chemo and radiation and can’t afford dentures or dental surgery — who do they sue? Where can they find a quick and easy 350K? I can promise you that each of them would accept only what they needed — teeth.
In my opinion, if our courts are going to allow this to continue and award Jerry Flanory anything, it should be nothing more than a case of toothpaste and maybe a toothbrush. He was in prison when his dental work was done, so that’s already paid for, again by law abiding tax payers that can’t afford a dentist visit.
Of all the selfish, asinine things I’ve heard of, this about takes the cake. Flanory needs to take responsibility for his own actions—had he chosen not to assault someone, he would not have been in the position he found himself in. One lost tooth and a gum disease is insignificant when you factor in all the circumstances.
I think he should visit a chemo unit or poor neighborhood, look around at those with breaking teeth, those with no teeth, those that have harmed no one, and count his blessings. Twice.
As far as the appeals court judges, what were they thinking? Or do they even think anymore? When will we quit rewarding criminal behavior?
Take the 350 grand and donate it to a dental clinic for people that really deserve help.
What are your thoughts on ‘Jerry Flanory: Ex-Con Can Sue Over No Toothpaste’ ? Cruel and unusual punishment or get rich quick?
Please tell us in the comment section below.
May 8th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
wtf…why didn’t he get his family to send him some …maybe he should sue them also ….or why didn’t he borrow some from a friendly ..butt..er…shower buddy
May 8th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I think when you lock a man in a cage you then are on the hook for his medical and dental care, no questions asked. To do less is a violation of basic human righs and stingy to the max. Its not even Christian. He should get toothpaste and adental care, not a big law suit.
May 8th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
at a couple of bucks for an extra large tube of toothpaste that should last months, you can afford it. I think you can get enough for a year at the price of one simple cocktail martini.
May 8th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
JoAnn, the whole point is an incarcerated man cannot fend for himslef and he is payed artificially low wages like .11 cents an hour. So the state has to fill in the basic human needs gap, much like a University does for its students who are generally forced to pay a mild amount for the health plan. I think Berkeley use to be about 75 dollars a semester for basic medical clinic care and dental care and a rider for hospitalization and specialist care. As a gaurd I would want to give someone toothpaste if they asked for it. Its just the right thing to do. How could they deny him that?
May 8th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
I am surprised some of the gaurds didn’t approach the administration to give him tooth paste. common sense really!!
May 8th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Brian..yes, he probably should have had toothpaste..but really, it’s not as necessary as food, water and air. As I said, a lot of poor people have to choose between toothpaste and bread/eggs, whatever.
My point is the lawsuit is insulting to sane people..and people that are in dire need of dental work through no fault of their own.
May 8th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Completely agreed JoAnne. I’d be willing to bet that his version of why he lost his indigent status might not be exactly accurate. I find it a little hard to believe that anyone, much less a civil servant, would go to the trouble of that much paperwork because he couldn’t prove he had a GED and a year of community college. It took them a year to verify his education – why would they spend the time doing paperwork to keep him from being eligible to get toothpaste.
The story doesn’t hold water to me – but I could be wrong.
Still – I wish my teeth were worth $350,000. But they aren’t to anyone but me.
May 8th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
BTW – I wonder how the taxpayers of Michigan feel about paying this guy $350K for not brushing his teeth for a year.
Isn’t Michigan pretty much broke?
May 8th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Joann criminality isn’t selective, if your criminal to one your a first cousin yourself. Give the man some toothpaste, throw out the suit, administratively punish the people who took it away from him, and pass a new rule about how you treat your prisoners humanely. everyone knows some inmates sue everybody they come in contact with hoping something sticks. Well prison gaurds are human too and make mistakes, and some are really preventable, like this one if you just use common human decency and common sense. The taxpayers in Michigan should be docking the pay of the gaurds for putting them stupidly and non-necessarily at risk. What adults don’t know other adults need tooth paste to prevent cavities? cavities cause pain and introduce bacteria into other body structures like the jaw, heart, eye, kidney, ect. whats the rocket science here? It was plain mean spirited and abusive and the guard administrators who perpetuated this ought to be disciplined. If your abusive to one person knowlingly, you can be abusive to anybody knowingly. thats just a fact of human nature.
May 8th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
the only reason the taxpayers of michegan would be on the hook for 350k to this guy is because their paid employees abused him over time. pretty simple.