Flournoy v. Wexford Health Source, Inc.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOHNNIE FLOURNOY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:24-cv-02420-GCS

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE, INC.,

PERCY MYERS, and LATOYA

HUGHES,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Johnnie Flournoy, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this

action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the

Complaint, Flournoy alleges that he was denied medical care and medication for

numerous conditions.

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, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is

immune from such relief must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

THE COMPLAINT

Flournoy suffers from several conditions including glaucoma, high blood

pressure, eczema, and an unknown throat condition. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He first started

receiving treatment for his glaucoma at the University of Chicago (“UIC”) Glaucoma

Clinic, and doctors there informed him that his condition could be controlled using

special eye drops to control the pressure and prevent further damage. Id. At the time he

began treatment, Flournoy was incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center and often

went months without his prescribed drops. Id. This resulted in multiple surgeries on his

eyes, including the implantation of tubes and a plate in both eyes. Id. Although originally

placed on a medical hold, Flournoy alleges that Wexford released the hold. Id. at p. 5-6.

He was then transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center in 2016 and later to

Pinckneyville Correctional Center in July 2021. Id.

At Pinckneyville, Dr. Myers initially discontinued his blood pressure medication

and glaucoma prescription. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Flournoy went without his glaucoma drops

from May 2024 until August 23, 2024, when he received some of his medication. Flournoy

alleges that as of October 24, 2024, he has yet to receive a further refill of his drops. Id.

Flournoy also alleges that since arriving at Pinckneyville, his medications have been

delayed for long periods of time, including his glaucoma eye drops, blood pressure

medications, and eczema medications. Id. at p. 9. He had various verbal exchanges with

Dr. Myers making Dr. Myers aware of the delays in his medication. But Dr. Myers merely

blamed the pharmacist and Wexford. Id. Dr. Myers also took Flournoy off his prescription

of baby Aspirin, which was initially prescribed for his blood pressure. Flournoy alleges

that Dr. Myers told him that the mediation was being discontinued because Flournoy had

not yet had a heart attack. Id.

On August 8, 2021, while at Pinckneyville, Flournoy suffered a problem with the

implant in his left eye and was sent to a hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. The doctors

informed Flournoy that UIC should be handling his care. Flournoy alleges he never

received follow-up care after visiting the hospital because Wexford has a cost-cutting

policy that Dr. Myers enforced. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Flournoy alleges that he failed to receive

proper treatment since transferring from Stateville and lost part of his vision in his left

eye since being at Lawrence. Id. at p. 10. Despite UIC indicating that he needed to be

properly monitored, Flournoy alleges that officials failed to properly monitor his

condition, leading to his problems and transfer to St. Louis. Id. He also alleges that

Wexford deliberately denied him treatment in retaliation for his prior lawsuits and

complaints to the governor. Id.

As to his eczema condition, Flournoy alleges that he had to complain to the

governor before Dr. Myers would provide any treatment or send him to a specialist. (Doc.

1, p. 7). He was eventually diagnosed with chronic eczema and prescribed medication.

Dr. Myers, however, refused to follow the prescription as written due to cost cutting

policies he was trying to enforce on behalf of Wexford. Id.

On May 6, 2024, Flournoy complained to a nurse that something was wrong, and

he needed care. The nurse told him to put in a medical request slip and then wait to be

placed on the sick call list. He called his sister who, in turn, spoke to the ADA Coordinator

Christine Brown. (Doc. 1, p. 7-8). Brown spoke to the warden, who ordered Flournoy

transferred to the healthcare unit for care. Medical personnel in the unit determined that

Flournoy was in A-fib and transferred him to an outside hospital for treatment. Flournoy

notes that Brown and the warden helped provide him with proper care. He alleges

medical staff were unhappy that the warden interfered with their care, but eventually

realized that Flournoy’s condition was serious and transported him to the hospital. Id. at

p. 8, 10-11). Flournoy believes that his condition was caused by a throat issue that makes

it difficult for him to swallow food and water. Id. at p. 8. As a result of the condition, he

suffers from a chronic cough, gag, and choking that he believes caused his A-fib. Id.

Although Flournoy presented his issues to Dr. Myers in 2023, he ignored his requests for

care to cut costs for Wexford. Id. Flournoy argues that he needs outside medical care, but

Dr. Myers and Wexford continue to turn a blind eye to his medical needs. Id.

PRELIMINARY DISMISSALS

Flournoy alleges that an unknown nurse refused to provide him treatment for his

A-fib attack. He further notes that healthcare unit staff were reluctant to send him to the

hospital because the warden ordered Flournoy be brought to the unit based on a call from

his sister. (Doc. 1, p. 10-11). Although Flournoy seeks to bring claims against these

individuals, he has failed to identify them as defendants in the case caption. See, e.g.,

Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-552 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting that to be properly

considered a party, a defendant must be “specif[ied] in the caption.”). Further, Flournoy

fails to identify the specific individuals that he spoke to in the healthcare unit. Although

Flournoy may certainly allege claims against identified John/Jane Does (i.e., John Doe #1,

John Doe #2), he refers only to the healthcare unit and does not identify a specific staff

member who provided him with care. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Thus, Flournoy fails to state a claim

against any individual who acted with deliberate indifference in treating his A-fib.

Flournoy also alleges that Dr. Myers failed to supervise his staff to ensure they

were properly providing Flournoy with medications and treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 11). But

Dr. Myers cannot be liable simply in his position as a supervisor of the healthcare unit

because the doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisory liability) does not apply to actions

filed under Section 1983. See Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). Dr. Myers

can only be liable for his personal involvement in Flournoy’s care, as discussed below.

Further, to the extent that Flournoy seeks to raise an ADA claim, his request is

DENIED. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), “no qualified individual

with a disability shall, because of that disability . . . be denied the benefits of the services,

programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such

entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2006). Although Flournoy notes that he is an ADA inmate, he

fails to indicate how defendants have failed to accommodate his disability. (Doc. 1, p. 3).

Flournoy fails to allege that he has been denied services, programs, or activities due to

his disability, only noting that his disability is not being accommodated by Wexford. Id.

Failing to provide Flournoy with medical care does not amount to the denial of services

or programs. See, e.g., Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (stating that “[t]he

ADA does not create a remedy for medical malpractice.”). Thus, he fails to state a claim

under the ADA.

Finally, Flournoy notes that he was denied and delayed treatment while

incarcerated at Stateville and Lawerence, but he fails to identify any defendant that

denied him care at those institutions. Thus, any claim related to his care at these facilities

is DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide

the pro se action into the following counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against

Dr. Myers for denying and delaying Flournoy access to

medications and treatment for his glaucoma, high blood

pressure, throat condition, heart issues, and eczema.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against

Wexford Health Source, Inc. for having a policy and/or

practice of delaying and denying medical care and

medications in order to cut costs for the company.

The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders,

unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is

mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered

dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading

standard.1

At this stage, Flournoy states a viable claim in Count 1 against Dr. Myers. Flournoy

alleges that Dr. Myers denied him medications, including baby Aspirin for his heart and

his glaucoma and eczema medications. He also alleges that he needs outside medical care

for his A-fib, throat issues, and glaucoma but Dr. Myers refuses to send him outside of

1 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (noting that an action fails

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face”).

the prison for care. And Dr. Myers allegedly delayed Flournoy’s referral to a specialist

for his eczema. Thus, Count 1 shall proceed against Dr. Myers.

Flournoy also states a viable claim against Wexford in Count 2. Wexford can only

be liable for deliberate indifference if it had a policy or practice that caused the

constitutional violation. See Iskander v. Vill. of Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126, 128 (7th Cir. 1982)

(applying municipal liability to private corporations performing governmental

functions); McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 324 (7th Cir. 2000). Flournoy alleges

that Wexford had a policy and/or practice of delaying and denying medical care to save

money. He alleges that Dr. Myers acted pursuant to that policy in delaying outside care

for his various conditions and by denying and delaying his access to medications.2

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

In his request for relief, Flournoy seeks a preliminary injunction including a

transfer to a prison where he can be seen by UIC and a hold on his transfer from that

prison. His request was previously denied because he failed to demonstrate he was

entitled to such relief. (Doc. 5). But Flournoy also added Director Hughes to the case, in

her official capacity only, to implement any injunctive relief awarded. Although Flournoy

has not currently met the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction, to the

2 Flournoy also alleges that Wexford specifically denied him care as an act of retaliation for

Flournoy’s complaints. But Flournoy fails to point to any policy and/or practice that led to the

retaliation. Thus, to the extent he alleges he was retaliated against by Wexford, this claim is

DISMISSED.

extent he seeks injunctive relief in this case, Director Hughes will remain in the case, in

her official capacity only.

DISPOSITION

For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Dr. Myers. Count 2

shall proceed against Wexford Health Source, Inc. Latoya Hughes remains in the case for

purposes of implementing any injunctive relief awarded.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Dr. Percy Myers, Wexford Health

Source, Inc., and Latoya Hughes (official capacity only): (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit

and Request to Waive Service of a Summons) and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of

Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint, and

this Memorandum and Order to each defendant’s place of employment as identified by

Flournoy. If a defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form

6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take

appropriate steps to effect formal service on that defendant, and the Court will require

that defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Flournoy,

the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the defendant’s current work address, or, if not

known, defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending

the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the

address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained

in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.

Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to

the Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues

stated in this Merit Review Order.

Because Flournoy’s claims involve his medical care, the Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to enter the Court’s standard HIPAA Qualified Protective Order.

If judgment is rendered against Flournoy, and the judgment includes the payment

of costs under Section 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,

regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(f)(2)(A).

Finally, Flournoy is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the

Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court

will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not

later than 14 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. PROC. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 23, 2024. Digitally signed by

Abhing Cc. debe: 7028 2.23

12:07:08 -06'00'

GILBERTC.SISON sis

United States Magistrate Judge

Page 9 of 10

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of

your lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been

achieved, the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your

Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the

defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all

the defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing

important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to

wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, to give the

defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before

defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature.

Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically

directed to do so.