The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KEVIN JOHNSON, #Y26289, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-00667-JPG
)
DR. JOHN/JANE DOE and )
WEXFORD HEALTHCARE )
SOURCES, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for preliminary review of Plaintiff Kevin Johnson’s First
Amended Complaint filed June 6, 2025. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff brings this civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional deprivations arising from a delay in replacing his broken
eyeglasses. He seeks money damages and injunctive relief.1 Id. at pp. 1-49. The First Amended
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.
First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Amended Complaint (Doc. 17, pp. 1-10):
Plaintiff was prescribed eyeglasses for a “lazy eye” when he was a child, and he required new
prescription glasses every six months for deteriorating vision. Id. at 9-10. Without glasses, he
1 Plaintiff seeks a Court Order requiring the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) to give him
replacement eyeglasses. Id. at 11. The IDOC is not a party to this action, so his request is denied.
If Plaintiff requires interim relief, he should file a separate Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
and/or Preliminary Injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)-(b). In the motion, Plaintiff
should describe the exact relief he seeks and the facts that support his request.
suffered from double vision and loss of depth perception. Id. at 12. When his eyeglasses broke at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center (Pinckneyville) on or around October 21, 2024, Plaintiff
requested replacement eyeglasses. Id. at 2.
Dr. John/Jane Doe, the prison eye doctor employed by Wexford Healthcare Sources, Inc.
(Wexford), explained that Plaintiff was responsible for the cost. Id. at 3. Plaintiff agreed to pay
for new glasses. He asked the doctor to schedule an appointment and promised to secure funds by
the appointment date. Dr. Doe told Plaintiff to wait until his 2-year appointment, which was 14
months later. Id.
Plaintiff developed increasingly severe headaches when his glasses broke. Id. at 2-10. He
suffered from daily migraines that caused debilitating pain. The headaches prevented sleep and
caused vomiting. The migraines did not respond to the medicine he was given. Id.
He submitted many sick call requests for replacement eyeglasses and/or treatment of
headaches.2 Nurse Sara, Nurse Katlyn, and Nurse Aaron responded to some of his sick call
requests by giving him Pepto Bismol and Tylenol. Dr. Meyers prescribed him Excedrin migraine
for a year beginning on December 5, 2024. The medicine did not stop his migraines. Id.
Plaintiff wrote to Dr. Doe to request replacement glasses and to report additional vision
loss, headaches, vomiting, and related injuries on the following dates: October 22, 2024, October
28, 2024, November 1, 2024, November 17, 2024, November 25, 2024, December 10, 2024,
December 22, 2024, January 1, 2025, January 15, 2025, February 7, 2025, February 22, 2025,
February 28, 2025, March 20, 2025, April 1, 2025, and June 2, 2025. Id. at 7-9. However,
2 He submitted sick call slips on October 24, 2024, October 29, 2024, November 2, 2024; November 6,
2024; November 11, 2024; November 15, 2024; November 17, 2024; November 18, 2024; November 21,
2024; November 23, 2024; November 25, 2024; November 28, 2024; December 5, 2024, December 16,
2024; December 20, 2024; December 26, 2024; December 28, 2024; January 5, 2025; January 10, 2025;
January 15, 2025; January 25, 2025; February 10, 2025; February 22, 2025; February 25, 2025; February
27, 2025; March 5, 2025; March 10, 2025; March 20, 2025; March 29, 2025; and April 15, 2025.
Dr. Doe did not meet with Plaintiff until April 21, 2025. Id. at 6-7. And, even after noting
additional vision loss, the eye doctor did not provide Plaintiff with replacement glasses. Id.
Plaintiff suffered additional injuries stemming from his poor vision. In February 2025, he
fell down the stairs after missing a step that he did not see. He injured his shoulder. Plaintiff
continues to suffer from numbness and tingling in his hands and a limited range of motion in his
arms. He was prescribed diclofenac (50 or 75 mg), acetaminophen (500 mg), and Tylenol for his
shoulder pain. Id. at 14. In June 2025, Plaintiff suffered serious chemical burns to his hands and
stomach. He could not see the instructions on a bottle of cleaning solution and used the wrong
amount to clean dishes in the prison’s kitchen. Plaintiff missed 21 days of work while recovering
from the burns. He now seeks money damages and new eyeglasses. Id. at 11.
Preliminary Dismissals
Plaintiff mentions certain individuals in the statement of his claim but does not identify
them as defendants, including Nurse Sara, Nurse Katlyn, Nurse Aaron, and Dr. Meyers, among
others. The Court will not treat non-parties as defendants. All claims against non-parties are
dismissed without prejudice. FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a) (complaint “must name all the parties”).
Discussion
Based on the allegations, the Court designates the following claims in the pro se First
Amended Complaint:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment3 deliberate indifference claim against Dr. John/Jane
Doe (prison eye doctor) for denying Plaintiff replacement eyeglasses after
his eyeglasses broke on or around October 21, 2024.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford for the denial of replacement
eyeglasses after Plaintiff’s glasses broke on or around October 21, 2024.
3 Plaintiff also mentions the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. However, these amendments govern certain claims
brought by arrestees (Fourth Amendment) and pretrial detainees (Fourteenth Amendment). The Eighth Amendment
governs claims of inadequate medical care brought by convicted persons. Because Plaintiff was a convicted person
when his claims arose, the Eighth Amendment controls.
Count 3: Illinois state law claim against Defendants for the intentional infliction of
emotional distress.
Any other claim mentioned in the First Amended Complaint but not addressed herein is considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007).
Count 1
An Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of medical care requires the plaintiff to show
that: (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition; and (2) the defendant was
subjectively aware of that condition and deliberately indifferent to it. Munson v. Newbold, 46
F.4th 678, 681 (7th Cir. 2022). The objective component is satisfied by a medical condition 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). The
subjective component is satisfied by a defendant who knows about and disregards an excessive
risk to inmate health. Id. A delay in treating a non-life-threatening but painful condition rises to
the level of deliberate indifference, if the delay exacerbates an injury or prolongs a prisoner’s pain.
Taylor v. Buss, App. No. 24-2616, 2025 WL 1902612, at *2 (7th Cir. July 10, 2025).
Plaintiff’s allegations satisfy both components of this claim against Dr. John/Jane Doe at
screening. Plaintiff was prescribed eyeglasses at an early age and required new prescription
glasses every six months. These allegations describe a sufficiently serious medical condition at
this stage. Defendant Doe delayed an appointment for replacement eyeglasses, even after he
learned of Plaintiff’s ongoing vision problems, headaches, nausea, and related injuries. Plaintiff
never received new glasses. The allegations suggest that the eye doctor responded with deliberate
indifference by unnecessarily delaying replacement glasses while the plaintiff suffered pain and
further injury. Count 1 shall receive further review against Dr. John/Jane Doe.
Count 2
To state an Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford, Plaintiff must establish that a
policy, custom, or practice attributable to the corporation actually caused a violation of his
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 sets forth no allegations against this
defendant. He identifies no policy, custom, or practice of the medical corporation that resulted in
any delay or denial of eyeglasses or treatment for related pain or injuries. Court 2 shall be
dismissed without prejudice against Wexford.
Count 3
The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Illinois state law claim for
intentional infliction of emotional district because it is related to the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367. To articulate a claim, the plaintiff must set forth allegations showing that officials acted
in an extreme and outrageous way, intended to inflict severe emotional distress or knew of the high
probability that it would occur, and caused the plaintiff to suffer from severe emotional distress.
See Doe v. Calumet City, 641 N.E.2d 498, 506-07 (Ill. 1994) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts
§ 46, comment d (1965)). Plaintiff lists the elements of this claim, but he sets forth no allegations
in support of any of them. The Court is not obligated to accept as true “legal conclusions, or
threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.”
See Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Count 3 shall be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Identification of Unknown Defendant
Plaintiff shall be allowed to proceed with Count 1 against Dr. John/Jane Doe, who is
described as the eye doctor at Pinckneyville Correctional Center from October 21, 2024 to the
present. However, this defendant must be identified with particularity before service of the First
Amended Complaint can be made on him/her. Plaintiff will have the opportunity to engage in
limited discovery to ascertain the identity of this defendant. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009). The Current Warden of Pinckneyville Correctional
Center will be added as a defendant, in his or her official capacity only, and shall be responsible
for responding to discovery aimed at identifying the unknown defendant. Once the name of
Dr. John/Jane Doe is discovered, Plaintiff shall file a motion to substitute the newly identified
defendant in place of the generic designation in the case caption and throughout the First Amended
Complaint.
Disposition
The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) survives screening, as follows:
• COUNT 1 will proceed against Defendant DR. JOHN/JANE DOE (Pinckneyville
Correctional Center eye doctor), once this defendant is identified by first and last
name in a Motion to Substitute Defendant.
• COUNT 2 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim against
WEXFORD HEALTHCARE SOURCES, INC.
• COUNT 3 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim against BOTH
DEFENDANTS.
• The CURRENT WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER
is ADDED as a defendant, in an official capacity only, to help identify Dr. John/Jane
Doe (eye doctor from October 21, 2024 to present) and to implement any injunctive
relief ordered in this case.
Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against a non-party in the First Amended
Complaint (Doc. 17, p. 11) is DENIED. If Plaintiff seeks interim relief in this matter, he may file
a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction under Rule 65(a) or (b)
at any time during the pending action.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ADD the Current Warden of Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (official capacity only) as a party in CM/ECF; TERMINATE Wexford
Healthcare Sources, Inc. as a party in CM/ECF; and ENTER the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
With regard to COUNT 1, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant CURRENT
WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER (official capacity only) and
DR. JOHN/JANE DOE (once identified): (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 First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17), 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, and the Court will require 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 Plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with 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.
Defendant Dr. John/Jane Doe (once identified) is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate
responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244 and Local Rule 8.2,
Defendant should only respond to the issues stated in this Merits Review Order. The Current
Warden of Pinckneyville Correctional Center need not answer the First Amended
Complaint and should only appear in this matter.
IT IS ORDERED that if judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes
the payment of costs under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the
costs, even though his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to inform the Clerk of Court
and each opposing party of any address changes; 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. FED. R. CIV.
P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 8/11/2025
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Notice
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendant of your lawsuit
and serve him/her with a copy of your First Amended Complaint, after he/she is identified by first
and last name. After service has been achieved, the defendant will enter his/her appearance and
file an Answer to your First Amended Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date
of this Order to receive the Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more.
When the defendant has 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 defendant before filing any motions, in order to give the defendant
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendant’s counsel
has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. The plaintiff need not submit any
evidence to the court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.