The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
THOMAS M. SMITH, #Y11769, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 24-cv-02483-SMY
)
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )
LATOYA HUGHES, )
DR. GENTRY, )
AND JOHN BARWICK, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Thomas M. Smith, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional
deprivations stemming from the denial of transition lenses at Pinckneyville Correctional Center.
The Complaint is now subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires this
Court to dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief,
or seeks money damages from an immune defendant. Id. Plaintiff also filed a motion for
emergency injunction (Doc. 2) to request court-ordered transition lenses.
The Complaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 1-4): While housed
at Shawnee Correctional Center, Plaintiff was diagnosed with a progressive astigmatism that
causes extreme light sensitivity (photophobia), sun blindness, headaches, and eye pain with
exposure to bright lights. To reduce his light exposure, Shawnee’s eye doctor added transition
lenses to Plaintiff’s eyeglass prescription.
In September 2023, before receiving his new eyeglasses, Plaintiff transferred to
Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Dr. Gentry, Pinckneyville’s eye doctor, also approved
transition lenses. Plaintiff waited five months for the new eyeglasses to arrive. When he finally
received them, the glasses had no transition lenses. Pinckneyville’s health care unit (HCU)
administrator explained that the Regional Director of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. intervened and
denied the transition lenses as unnecessary. Plaintiff claims this was only done to save the private
health corporation money.
Plaintiff met with Dr. Gentry to discuss the matter, and the doctor explained that Wexford
routinely denied funds for transition lenses when he prescribed them. During this meeting,
Plaintiff asked Dr. Gentry for a second prescription for transition lenses or treatment for pain.
Dr. Gentry agreed to prescribe transition lenses again. But, when Plaintiff received his second pair
of eyeglasses two months later, they had no transition lenses. Plaintiff looked into the matter and
learned that Dr. Gentry never actually prescribed transition lenses a second time. Dr. Gentry also
failed to address his complaints of pain.
Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance to complain about Dr. Gentry’s denial of treatment,
and Warden Barwick denied the grievance. He then submitted 4 sick call requests for treatment
with Dr. Gentry, sent 2 or 3 grievances to Latoya Hughes’ office, and filed a complaint against
Wexford. To date, he has not been seen or treated. Plaintiff continues to suffer extreme light
sensitivity, sun blindness, eye pain, and headaches with exposure to bright lighting.
Based on the allegations, the Court designates the following claims in the pro se Complaint:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford for intervening and denying
Dr. Gentry’s initial prescription for Plaintiff’s transition lenses in order to
save on the cost of inmate medical care.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Gentry for denying Plaintiff’s second
prescription for transition lenses and for failing to treat his extreme light
sensitivity, sun blindness, headaches, vision impairment, and eye pain
caused by exposure to bright lights at Pinckneyville.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against grievance officials (Warden Barwick and
Acting IDOC Director Latoya Hughes) for denying or disregarding
Plaintiff’s grievances about the first and second denial of transition lenses.
Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007).
Discussion
Count 1
To state a colorable claim for the denial of medical care under the Eighth Amendment, a
plaintiff must describe: (a) an objectively serious medical need; and (b) deliberate indifference by
each defendant. An objectively serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician
as requiring treatment or one where the need for treatment would be obvious to a lay person.
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Deliberate indifference occurs when a
defendant knows about a plaintiff’s need for treatment and disregards an excessive risk to the
inmate’s health. See Tuduj v. Lawrence, 829 F. App’x 120 (7th Cir. 2020); Pyles v. Fahim, 771
F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014). Treatment delays that exacerbate a serious medical condition or
cause unnecessarily prolonged pain may also constitute deliberate indifference. McGowan v.
Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2010).
The Complaint describes an objectively serious medical need. Plaintiff alleges that eye
doctors at Shawnee and Pinckneyville diagnosed him with photophobia caused by a severe
astigmatism that necessitated the use of prescription eyeglasses with transition lenses. He also
alleges that he experiences extreme pain, severe headaches, and vision impairment with light
exposure.
The deliberate indifference claim against Wexford in Count 1 turns on whether a policy,
custom, or practice attributable to the private medical corporation caused a violation of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. Shields v. Illinois Dept. of Corr., 746 F.3d 782, 786 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing
Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). Plaintiff alleges that Wexford’s regional
director intervened and denied the initial prescription for transition lenses to save on the cost of
inmate medical care, and that Dr. Gentry later described Wexford’s denial of transition lenses as
routine. Those allegations suggest that the initial denial of transition lenses stemmed from a policy,
custom, or practice of Wexford, rather than an independent decision of its regional director.
Therefore, Count 1 survives screening against Wexford.
Count 2
The deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Gentry arises from his alleged failure to re-
issue a prescription for transition lenses when the initial prescription was not filled, and his alleged
failure to treat Plaintiff’s complaints of pain. A deliberate indifference claim may proceed against
a medical provider who idly stands by while an inmate with a known medical need receives no
treatment and suffers from unnecessarily prolonged pain. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 731 (7th
Cir. 2016). Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Gentry took no action to address his complaints of
photophobia and pain. Therefore, Count 2 will proceed against Dr. Gentry.
Count 3
Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault;
liability requires allegations that a defendant directed, participated, and/or consented to the
misconduct causing the deprivation. Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir.
2005). Grievance officials cannot be held liable based solely on their involvement in the grievance
process. Therefore, to state a viable deliberate indifference claim against Warden Barwick and
Acting Director Hughes, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege that each defendant was personally
involved in a violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. Because Plaintiff’s allegations do
not suggest that the Warden or Acting Director had any involvement in the decisions to deny
transition lenses or deny pain treatment, beyond the grievance process, he fails to state a plausible
claim of deliberate indifference against them. Therefore, Count 3 will be dismissed without
prejudice against Warden Barwick and Acting Director Hughes, in their individual capacities.
Motion for Emergency Injunction (Doc. 2)
Plaintiff seeks an emergency court order compelling the defendants to provide him with
transition lenses to avoid unnecessary pain and a possible inmate attack. The Court construes this
request as a motion seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO).
A TRO is issued without notice to the party to be enjoined and may last up to 14 days. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(2). It may issue only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint
clearly show that immediate or irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before
the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Such injunctive
relief is also warranted “to prevent a substantial risk of serious injury from ripening into actual
harm.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994).
Plaintiff provides insufficient information in support of his request. He does not indicate
how recently he requested and was denied transition lenses, how frequently he suffers from the
above-listed symptoms, how often he is currently exposed to the level of light that causes these
symptoms, and whether he has access to other non-transition lenses or items that reduce his light
exposure, such as sunglasses, a sleep mask, a sun visor, or a hat. Nor does Plaintiff provide
information suggesting that he has been threatened with or faces any immediate risk of physical
harm by other inmates. Given this, the Court does not find that Plaintiff faces immediate or
irreparable harm or a substantial risk of harm warranting a TRO at this time. Plaintiff’s Motion
for Emergency Injunction (Doc. 2) is denied.
Disposition
The Complaint (Doc. 1) survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, as follows:
• COUNT 1 will proceed against WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.
• COUNT 2 will proceed against DR. GENTRY.
• COUNT 3 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim against JOHN
BARWICK and LATOYA HUGHES.
• The CURRENT WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER
is ADDED as a defendant in an official capacity for purposes of implementing any
injunctive relief ordered in this case.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Injunction (Doc. 2) is DENIED without prejudice.
The Clerk shall prepare for WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. and DR.
GENTRY: (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 (Doc. 1), and this Memorandum and Order to each Defendant’s place of
employment as identified by Plaintiff. 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 Defendant.The Court will require Defendant
to pay the full costs of formal service, as authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If a Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the employer
shall furnish the Clerk with that Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, the
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 and shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file appropriate responsive pleading to the Complaint
and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Under Administrative Order
No. 244 and SDIL-LR 8.2, Defendants should only respond to the issues stated in this Merit
Review Order.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment includes
the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the
costs, even though he was granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of
Court and the opposing parties 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. P. 41(b).
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to ENTER the Court’s standard HIPAA-Qualified
Protective Order; ADD the CURRENT WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE
CORRECTIONAL CENTER as a defendant, in an official capacity only, for purposes of
implementing any injunctive relief herein; and TERMINATE Defendants JOHN
BARWICK and LATOYA HUGHES as parties in CM/ECF.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 2/13/2025
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Notice to Plaintiff
Once identified, the Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendants of your
lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been achieved,
Defendants will enter their appearances and file Answers to your Complaint. It will likely take at
least 60 days from the date they are served with this lawsuit to receive the Answers, but it is
entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When Defendants have all 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 Defendants before filing any
motions, to give the Defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions
filed before Defendants’ attorneys have filed appearances will generally be denied as premature.
Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically directed to do
so.