Davis v. Howes

── Davis v. Howes ── Case No.: 25-3102 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 27, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-3102 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court KEVIN TAMAR DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-3102 (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-03143-JWL) JESSE HOWES; JAMES SKIDMORE; (D. Kan.) FRED CANNON; JEANIE BURK, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Kevin Tamar Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought civil rights claims against various Kansas healthcare and corrections officials. The district court screened the complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and, in a series of orders, dismissed all counts for failure to state a claim. Mr. Davis now appeals and moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we dismiss the appeal but grant the IFP motion. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-3102 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 2 BACKGROUND A. The Complaint’s Allegations 1. Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference—need for endodontic care Mr. Davis is a prisoner in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) at Lansing Correctional Facility (“LCF”). He alleges he has a “bifurcated dental issue,” or a painful cyst growing within decaying bone tissue in his upper jaw. R. vol. I at 12 ¶¶ 12–13. According to Mr. Davis, proper treatment of his dental condition would require an apicoectomy (root end surgery). In June 2023, Mr. Davis had a consultation with an off-site oral surgeon, Dr. Aaron Sterling Card. Dr. Card recommended an apicoectomy and referred Mr. Davis to an endodontic surgeon for more specialized care. In October 2023, Mr. Davis learned that KDOC’s Regional Dental Director, Defendant Fred Cannon, had denied Dr. Card’s specialist referral. Instead, Dr. Cannon recommended extracting two of Mr. Davis’s (otherwise healthy) front teeth. Mr. Davis declined the extraction and continued to request endodontic treatment, but he only received medications that did not improve his condition. On November 14, 2023, Mr. Davis made a “Form 9 request” in an apparent effort to contact Dr. Cannon. Id. at 13 ¶ 21; see id. at 39. That same day, he received written responses providing Dr. Cannon’s full name and employer, but also stating that Mr. Davis had “20 dental encounters since 1/1/23,” that his providers’ “recommendations have consistently been extraction of teeth