John Garfield v. Dennis Furlong, No. 17-2228 (7th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted February 6, 2019* Decided February 6, 2019 Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge No. 17-2228 JOHN GARFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DENNIS FURLONG, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 14-937-SCW Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate Judge. ORDER A dentist at an Illinois prison extracted a tooth from inmate John Garfield, but complications during the procedure caused Garfield pain and required additional surgery. Garfield brought deliberate indifference claims against the dentist, the prison’s medical director, and a correctional officer, and a retaliation claim against the officer. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (He sued other defendants too, but the district court at screening determined that Garfield failed to state claims against them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.) The We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the issues have been authoritatively decided. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B). * No. 17-2228 Page 2 court appointed counsel to represent Garfield. A magistrate judge, presiding by consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), entered summary judgment for the defendants. Garfield, proceeding pro se on appeal, argues the narrow point that the ineffective assistance of his appointed counsel entitles him to a new trial under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). He submits that his counsel should have disputed the timing of the dental complications and whether his signature on the consent form for the procedure was forged. Strickland instructs that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to “reasonably effective assistance” of counsel in trial and trial-like proceedings. See id. at 686–87. Garfield’s suit, however, is civil, and ineffective assistance is not a basis for remand in a civil matter. See Diggs v. Ghosh, 850 F.3d 905, 911 (7th Cir. 2017); Pendell v. City of Peoria, 799 F.3d 916, 918 (7th Cir. 2015). Moreover, counsel in fact did dispute the timing of events, and nothing in the record suggests that Garfield’s signature was forged. AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
