to include a third, unexhausted claim requiring dismissal under the total exhaustion rule. Mr. Whitington’s complaint to the District Court did delineate three separate “claims.” The District Court read the third claim to suggest that Mr. Whitington experienced an unconstitutional delay in receiving dental care, which the court considered to be separate from his claims relating to free access to hygiene products. See Garrett v. Stratman, 254 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir.2001) (a delay in medical treatment violates the Eighth Amendment if the delay results in substantial harm to the inmate). However, nowhere in the third claim is there a mention of a delay in dental treatment. Rather, the third “claim,” as delineated in Mr. Whitington’s complaint, seeks only to , 1406 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). As such, we hold that the District Court
holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs holding that a prison official can violate a prisoners eighth amendment rights by failing to intervene holding that prisoner must show prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prison conditions to establish an eighth amendment violation recognizing prisoners first amendment right to eom plain to prison officials about discrimination holding prisoners claim that prison officials refusal to provide hygiene items causing his gums to bleed and recede and tooth decay states a claim for a violation of the eighth amendment