Allen v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LEON ALLEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:24-CV-2381-MAB

)

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:

This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff Leon Allen’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 13). For the reasons explained below, the motion is

denied.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in October

2024, alleging that he has received constitutionally inadequate medical care for throat

cancer (Doc. 1). Following a threshold review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915A, Plaintiff was permitted to proceed on the following counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Director of Nursing Sabrina

Bickers, Health Care Unit Administrator Phil Martin, and Warden Chad

Jennings for exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s throat cancer at

Robinson in 2023-24, when they disregarded his diagnosis, delayed his

treatment, denied his follow-up care, and thereby exacerbated his

condition.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford for causing a delay in

Plaintiff’s necessary cancer treatment through its three-tiered approach to

care, which requires inmates to meet with a nurse, then a physician’s

assistant or nurse practitioner, and, only then, a doctor, if necessary.

(Doc. 8).

Plaintiff’s complaint included a request for injunctive relief, and he was instructed

to file a supporting motion that set forth the exact relief he was requesting and supporting

facts (Doc. 8, p. 5). Plaintiff filed his motion, as ordered, on November 19, 2024, alleging,

in short, that Defendants failed to schedule him for a follow-up appointment as ordered

by his oncologist Dr. Casey Duncan (Doc. 13). Plaintiff sought an order compelling

Defendants to schedule the follow-up appointment (Id.).

Defendants were ordered to file a response by December 19, 2024 (Doc. 14). They

requested an extension of time, arguing that Plaintiff’s account of his treatment history

and the recommendations of his providers, as alleged in his Motion, was inaccurate when

compared to his medical records (Doc. 26; Doc. 29; see also Doc. 32). According to

Defendants, Plaintiff’s medical records showed that he had been receiving follow-up care

since he completed radiation, and he was scheduled to be seen by an ENT in mid-January

2025, which they argued would likely moot his request for preliminary injunctive relief

(Doc. 26). Notably, Plaintiff did not contest Defendants’ factual assertions or object to

their request for an extension of time. Defendants’ motion was granted, and they were

given until February 3, 2025, to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive

relief (Doc. 31). Defendants filed their joint response on January 29, 2025, detailing the

care Plaintiff had received that month and once again requesting that his motion for

injunctive relief be denied as moot (Doc. 36). Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is available

only when “the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Goodman v.

Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Reg., 430 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original)

(quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)). Additionally, mandatory

preliminary injunctions like the one sought here, which would require an affirmative act

by the defendant, are “ordinarily cautiously viewed and sparingly issued.” Mays v. Dart,

974 F.3d 810, 818 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Graham v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 295

(7th Cir. 1997)).

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that he is likely to

succeed on the merits of his claim, he has no adequate remedy at law, and that he would

suffer irreparable harm without the preliminary injunctive relief. Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th

572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023) (citing Speech First, Inc. v. Killeen, 968 F.3d 628, 637 (7th Cir. 2020)).

If the plaintiff makes this showing, then the court proceeds to a balancing analysis,

weighing the harm of denying an injunction to the plaintiff against the harm to the

defendant of granting one. Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis Spine, Inc., 8 F.4th 531, 539 (7th Cir.

2021). Ultimately, the plaintiff must show “that the balance of equities tips in his favor.”

Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 762 (7th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct.

1754 (2021) (quoting Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).

DISCUSSION

In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that he finished radiation treatment on October 2,

2023, and he was supposed to have a six-month follow-up appointment and screening

with his radiation oncologist, Dr. Casey Duncan, to ensure the treatment had been

successful and the cancer had not recurred (Doc. 13, para. 2, 3). At the time Plaintiff filed

his motion for injunctive relief, more than a year had elapsed since he had completed

treatment, but he claimed that he had yet to have a follow-up appointment with Dr.

Duncan (Id. at para. 3). Plaintiff stated that he had been suffering from symptoms “that

may indicate the cancer has returned,” including coughing up blood and large flecks of

necrotic tissue (Id. at para. 4). He further stated that he had submitted sick call requests,

but his requests were completely ignored (Id.). Plaintiff sought a court order compelling

prison and health care officials at Robinson to schedule a follow-up visit with Dr. Duncan

(Id. at para. 5).

The Court notes that in April 2025, after Plaintiff’s motion was fully briefed, he

was released from IDOC custody (see Doc. 46),1 which makes his request for preliminary

injunctive relief moot. Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 804 (7th Cir. 2008) (the plaintiff’s

“request for injunctive relief has been rendered moot by his release from prison.”) (citing

Brown v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006)).

The Court will nevertheless address the merits of Plaintiff’s motion because it

appears that he may already be back in IDOC custody.2 Like Defendants argued,

1 According to the IDOC website, Plaintiff was paroled on April 1, 2025. ILLINOIS DEP’T OF CORR., Individual

in Custody Search, https://idoc.illinois.gov/offender/inmatesearch.html (search by IDOC number

N54121).

2 According to the IDOC website, Plaintiff was readmitted to IDOC custody on May 16, 2025, and is

currently incarcerated at the Northern Reception Center at Stateville. His projected parole date is October

1, 2026. ILLINOIS DEP’T OF CORR., Individual in Custody Search,

https://idoc.illinois.gov/offender/inmatesearch.html (search by IDOC number N54121).

Plaintiff’s medical records show that his account of his treatment history and the

recommendations of his providers is inaccurate. The records show that Defendants did

not shirk scheduling Plaintiff for post-treatment follow-up visits as ordered by Dr.

Duncan. There was one in October 2023, one in November 2023, and one in December

2023 (Doc. 36-1, pp. 97–119, 140, 141-45). At the final appointment in December, Dr.

Duncan said that any additional appointments would be on an as-needed basis (Id. at p.

143). In other words, Dr. Duncan did not order a six-month follow-up like Plaintiff claims.

Because no six-month follow-up appointment was ordered, Plaintiff cannot show that

Defendants were deliberately indifferent for not scheduling such appointment, and he is

not entitled to an injunction compelling Defendants to do so.

Although Dr. Duncan did not order a six-month follow-up, Plaintiff’s ENT, Dr.

Charly Nguyen, did. The medical records show that at Plaintiff’s post-treatment

appointment with Dr. Duncan in October 2023, the doctor recommended Plaintiff see an

ENT for a routine post-radiation evaluation of his vocal cords (Doc. 36-1, p. 99). Plaintiff

subsequently saw Dr. Nguyen on January 16, 2024 (Id. at pp. 146-147). Dr. Nguyen found

no evidence of a cancer recurrence and recommended a six-month follow-up visit (Id.). It

appears from the records that health care officials at the prison did not take any steps to

get approval for the follow-up visit or to schedule it (see Doc. 36-1), and Plaintiff had to

remind Dr. Alisha Thomas in July 2024 that he was due for a follow-up (see id. at p. 82).

Dr. Thomas submitted a referral for the ENT visit on July 18, 2024 (Id. at pp. 82, 148).

It seems as though there was a delay in getting the ENT follow-up appointment

approved and/or scheduled (see Doc. 36-1, p. 155; see also Doc. 1, p. 7, para. 7), but it was

eventually scheduled for January 21, 2025 (id. at p. 155).3 That day, Plaintiff saw Nurse

Practitioner Jennifer Hall at the ENT clinic (Doc. 36-2). NP Hall performed a fiberoptic

laryngoscopy and determined there was no recurrence of cancer (Id.). Plaintiff’s

symptoms were due to reflux (Id.). NP Hall told Plaintiff to start taking omeprazole and

famotidine, to use a nasal saline spray at least four times a day, and to return for a

reevaluation in three months (Id.).

To the extent the ENT follow-up visit is what Plaintiff meant to make the subject

of his motion for injunctive relief, he has once again failed to make a clear showing that

he is entitled to any relief. Although there was apparently an extended delay before the

ENT follow-up visit occurred (and the wait was no doubt distressing to Plaintiff), he was

eventually seen in January 2025. Therefore, he has now received all of the relief that he

requested. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not show that the delay in seeing the ENT caused

him any irreparable harm. While he feared that his cancer had come back, that proved

not to be the case. He simply had reflux, which could be treated with over-the-counter

treatments.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 13) is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2025

s/ Mark A. Beatty

MARK A. BEATTY

United States Magistrate Judge

3 It was during the gap in time between when the referral was made in July 2024 and the appointment in

January 2025 that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit and moved for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 1, Doc. 13).