# Nelson v. Wexford Healthcare Providers

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · August 21, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10150856

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** August 21, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10150856

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that to be properly considered a party, a defendant must be specified in the caption

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KARNELL NELSON, #N91564, )
COREY EGNER, #S14263, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 19-cv-00482-SMY
vs. )
)
WEXFORD HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, )
JOHN BALDWIN, )
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTIONS, )
JEFFRY DENNISON, AND )
KAREN SMOOT, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Karnell Nelson and Corey Egner, inmates in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
deprivations of their constitutional rights that occurred while they were incarcerated at Shawnee
Correctional Center (“Shawnee”). Plaintiffs claim that inmates with mental health issues
incarcerated at Shawnee are subjected to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement and are
denied adequate mental health treatment. They seek injunctive relief and monetary damages.
(Doc. 1).
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner Complaints to
filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a Complaint that is
legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests
money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Complaint
Plaintiffs make the following allegations in the Complaint: The conditions of confinement
for inmates on crisis watch at Shawnee are unsanitary and unhealthy. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Inmates are

placed in cells that are constantly lit, covered in human waste, and have soiled, old mattresses.
Because the windows are broken, the temperature in the cells becomes unbearably hot or cold.
Inmates on crisis watch are also deprived of their property and left without shoes to wear or
hygiene products. Jeffry Dennison is the Chief Administrative Officer at Shawnee and is
responsible for the operation and conditions of the facility. (Id. at 4-5).
The mental health needs of inmates at Shawnee are not being properly met by Wexford
Healthcare Providers. (Id. at 5). They are understaffed and it can take weeks to be seen by a
mental health provider. When an inmate sees a provider, the meeting lasts under five minutes and
there is no therapy. This is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”). Wexford Healthcare Providers, Karen Smoot (the health care unit

administrator/ADA coordinator), and Jeffry Dennison (the Chief Administrative Officer) are
involved in the violation.
The mental health providers have too much freedom in determining an inmate’s level of
mental health functioning. Inmates that have been designated as having a serious mental illness
(“SMI”) are, without reason, no longer being designated as such, which can affect the level of
treatment received. Plaintiff Egner was designated SMI from 2016-2018, but that changed in 2019
despite him experiencing the same mental health issues. (Id. at 5, 8). Plaintiff Nelson was
designated SMI for many years, but was suddenly changed despite facing the same mental health
issues. (Id. at 8). Because of the change in designation, Plaintiffs are not receiving the appropriate
level of treatment and have no restrictions on placement in segregation or throughout the facility.
The SMI designation is overseen by Mental Health Supervisor Justice and Smoot.
The inadequate mental health treatment is an ongoing situation for Plaintiffs and many
other inmates at Shawnee. Plaintiffs have been placed on crisis watch on a number of occasions.

Director Baldwin is responsible for overseeing IDOC’s operation. Wexford Health Care is
responsible for the treatment of mentally ill inmates.
At some point, Plaintiffs have been harassed by staff because of their mental health issues
and level of functioning. (Id. at 9). Plaintiff Nelson has been harassed by Nurse Casey Lee-Rece,
Ms. Smooch, Lt. Browning, and C/O Anderson. Plaintiff Egner has been harassed by C/O Bernard
and other officers.
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate the
following Counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim of unconstitutional conditions of
confinement of inmates on crisis watch for mental health
reasons.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need by providing inadequate mental health treatment
to inmates.

Count 3: American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim for failing to
accommodate inmates with mental health needs by not
providing regular appointments with mental healthcare
professionals.

Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against staff for harassing Plaintiffs
because of their mental health and level of functioning.

The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders,
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of the Court. The designations do not constitute an
opinion regarding their merit. Any other intended claim that has not been recognized by the
Court is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pleaded under the Twombly
pleading standard.1
Preliminary Dismissals
Plaintiffs make allegations against Mental Health Supervisor Justice, Nurse Casey Lee-

Rece, Ms. Smooch, Lt. Browning, C/O Anderson, C/O Bernard, and other officers, but those
individuals are not identified as defendants in the case caption. The Court will not treat individuals
not listed in the caption as defendants, and any claims against them are considered dismissed
without prejudice. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551–52 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that
to be properly considered a party, a defendant must be specified in the caption).
Discussion
The Complaint does not survive preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and will be
dismissed. Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon
fault. Therefore, “to be liable under § 1983, the individual defendant must have caused or
participated in a constitutional deprivation.” Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810

(7th Cir. 2005). To state a claim against a defendant, a plaintiff must describe what each named
defendant did or failed to do that violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The plaintiff is also
required to associate specific defendants with specific claims so that defendants are put on notice
of the claims brought against them and they can properly answer the Complaint. See Twombly,
550 at 555; FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
Here, Plaintiffs have failed to describe what specifically happened to them that constituted
a deprivation of their rights. The Complaint asserts that constitutional violations are generally

1 An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
occurring with respect to inmates with mental health needs at Shawnee, but it is unclear which of
those violations involve Plaintiffs. The Court will only consider alleged harms specifically to
Plaintiffs – not to the inmate population generally. Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 739-40 (7th
Cir. 1999).

Further, Plaintiffs fail to associate the allegations in the Complaint with any named
defendant. The allegations against Wexford Healthcare Providers fail to attribute personal liability
to any individual who may be in that group.2 As for Baldwin, Dennison, and Smoot, Plaintiffs do
not describe how they were personally involved in the alleged deprivations of their constitutional
rights. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Instead, they claim those defendants are responsible based on their
administrative positions. But prison officials cannot be held liable based solely on their positions
as administrators as the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to section 1983 actions.
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
Finally, as a state agency, IDOC is not a “person” that may be sued under Section 1983.
Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012). Moreover, although IDOC is a proper

defendant for a claim under the ADA, Plaintiffs do not provide the factual detail necessary to
support this claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(b); Jaros v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 685 F.3d 667, 671,
670 n.2 (7th Cir. 2012).
For the above-stated reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. However,
Plaintiffs will be given an opportunity to re-plead their claims in a First Amended Complaint if
they wish to proceed with this case. When preparing a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff should
identify each defendant in the case caption and set forth sufficient allegations against each

2 Additionally, to state a Section 1983 claim against an individual or entity, a Plaintiff must specifically identify the
individual or entity by name or Doe designation, not by a group designation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2).
defendant to describe what the defendant did or failed to do to violate their constitutional rights.
A successful complaint generally alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how ....” DiLeo v.
Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs should attempt to include the facts
of their case in chronological order, inserting each defendant’s name where necessary to identify

the actors. Plaintiffs should refrain from filing unnecessary exhibits. Plaintiffs should include
only related claims in the First Amended Complaint. Claims found to be unrelated to one another
will be severed into new cases, new case numbers will be assigned, and additional filing fees will
be assessed.
Plaintiffs are reminded of the following issues related to bringing their claims jointly in a
single lawsuit. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits plaintiffs to join together in one lawsuit
if they assert claims “arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to these persons will arise in the action.”
However, if appropriate, claims may be severed pursuant to Rule 20(b), parties improperly joined
may be dropped pursuant to Rule 21, and separate trials may be ordered pursuant to Rule 42(b).

Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 854 (7th Cir. 2004).
Additionally, while a prisoner litigating on his own behalf takes the risk that “one or more
of his claims may be deemed sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,” a prisoner
litigating jointly assumes those risks for all of the claims in the group Complaint and any Amended
Complaint, whether or not they concern him personally. Boriboune, 391 F.3d at 854-55. Also, if
the Court finds that the Complaint (or Amended Complaint) contains unrelated claims against
unrelated defendants, those unrelated claims may be severed into one or more new cases, each of
which involves an additional filing fee obligation and the risk of a “strike” within the meaning of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Further, all pleadings, including a motion or proposed amended complaint,
must be signed by each Plaintiff. See Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 831 (7th Cir.
1986); FED. R. CIV. P. 11. Plaintiffs are WARNED that group motions, proposed amended
complaints, or other pleadings that do not comply with this requirement will be stricken pursuant
to Rule 11(a).

As a final matter, Plaintiff Nelson filed a Supplement that includes various documents and
another statement of claim (Doc. 25). The purpose of the additional statement of claim was not
included with the filing. The Supplement includes a restatement of the conditions of confinement
and deliberate indifference claims that pertain only to Plaintiff Nelson against individuals who are
not named defendants. (Id. at 22-26). It is signed only by Plaintiff Nelson. As such, the
Supplement will be stricken as an improper attempt at a piecemeal amendment to the original
Complaint and because it is signed by only one Plaintiff.
Pending Motions
Motion for Recruitment of Counsel
Plaintiffs have each filed a Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Docs. 27, 35). Civil

litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
649 (7th Cir. 2007). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has discretion to recruit
counsel to represent indigent litigants in appropriate cases. Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001,
1006 (7th Cir. 2006). When deciding whether to recruit counsel for an indigent litigant, the Court
must consider (1) whether the indigent plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel
on his own, and, if so, (2) whether the difficulty of the case exceeds the plaintiff's capacity as a
layperson to coherently present it. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing
Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654).
Plaintiff Nelson discloses no efforts to locate counsel on his own. Plaintiff Egner states he
has written to attorneys but provided the name of only one law firm. The Court finds that Plaintiffs
have not made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on their own. If Plaintiffs chose to renew
their request for counsel, they should give the Court rejection letters from at least three attorneys
to prove that they have made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel on their own. The Motions for

Recruitment of Counsel (Docs. 27, 35) are DENIED without prejudice.
Motion to be Reinstated as a Plaintiff
This case was originally filed by three plaintiffs – Nelson, Egner, and Donald Hulet. The
Court issued a Boriboune Order advising Plaintiffs of the consequences of group litigation. (Doc.
10). Hulet then elected to sever his claims. (Doc. 24). As a result, he was dismissed as a Plaintiff
(Doc. 28) and a new case was opened, SDIL Case No. 19-cv-00609-SMY. Hulet now seeks to be
added as a Plaintiff in this case because his case has been dismissed and his motion for recruitment
of counsel was denied. (Doc. 36). He is under the impression that counsel has been appointed for
Nelson and Egner.
Hulet’s request is based on incomplete and incorrect information. Nelson and Egner have

not been appointed counsel, and the Complaint in this case is being dismissed for the same reasons
the Complaint in Hulet’s case was dismissed. The Court notes that Hulet’s Complaint was
dismissed without prejudice and he has an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint. Hulet’s
motion to be reinstated as a Plaintiff will be DENIED.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter does not survive 28 U.S.C. § 1915A review,
and the Complaint (including Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Supplement (Doc. 25) is STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Recruitment of Counsel (Docs. 27,
35) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to be Reinstated as a Plaintiff (Doc. 36) is
DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file a “First
Amended Complaint” on or before SEPTEMBER 23, 2019. Should Plaintiffs fail to file their First
Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with the instructions set forth in this
Order, the entire case shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order
and/or for failure to prosecute his claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d
1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The dismissal shall count as one of each Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g).
An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the
original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1

(7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint. Thus,
the First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any previous pleading,
and Plaintiffs must re-file any relevant exhibits they wish the Court to consider. The First Amended
Complaint is subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Should Plaintiffs decide to file a First Amended Complaint, it is strongly recommended
that Plaintiffs use the civil rights complaint form designed for use in this District. They should
label the form, “First Amended Complaint,” and they should use the case number for this action
(No. 19-cv-00482-SMY). To enable Plaintiffs to comply with this Order, the CLERK is
DIRECTED to mail Plaintiffs a blank civil rights complaint form.
Plaintiffs are further ADVISED that their obligation to pay the filing fee for this action
was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and payable, regardless
of whether Plaintiffs elect to file a First Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien
v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).

Finally, Plaintiffs are ADVISED that each of them is under a continuing obligation to keep
the Clerk of Court informed of any change in their address; the Court will not independently
investigate their whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer
or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this Order will cause a delay in the
transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: AUGUST 21, 2019

s/ Staci M. Yandle_________
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10150856. Public record. Not legal advice.