Lujano

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ADAM LUJANO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-cv-399-NJR

JEREMIAH BROWN, DIRECTOR

CUNNINGHAM, JOHN/JANE DOE

DOCTOR, SERGEANT MELLENDORI,

JOHN DOE CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER, LATOYA HUGHES, and

WEXFORD,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff Adam Lujano, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is

currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for

deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lujano’s original

complaint, alleging deliberate indifference in the treatment of his stomach ailment, was

dismissed for failure to state a claim (See Docs. 1, 13). Lujano was granted leave to file an

amended pleading. In his Amended Complaint (Doc. 17), Lujano again alleges that the

defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his stomach ailment.

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended

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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Amended Complaint

In December 2023, while on a writ to a facility in Wisconsin, Lujano was

transported to the emergency room (Doc. 17, p. 3). On December 28, 2023, a physician

assistant at the hospital told Lujano that he needed to see a gastroenterologist as soon as

possible. Although not entirely clear from his allegations, it appears Lujano remained in

Wisconsin for several months. Upon his return to Pinckneyville Correctional Center in

late 2024, medical staff scheduled him for a gastroenterology appointment for some time

in early 2025.1 But on December 13, 2024, he was transferred to Lawrence Correctional

Center (Id.).

At Lawrence, Lujano wrote the doctor over 20 times about his diverticulitis. He

informed the doctor of his severe pain when he ate and blood in his stool (Id.). He started

to experience the pain and blood the day before his transfer and continues to experience

the symptoms intermittently (Id.). In January 2025, he saw nurses who submitted a

request that he see the doctor (Id.). On or about March 26, 2025, Lujano saw a female

doctor and told her about his need to see a gastroenterologist based on the prior findings

of the emergency room nurse practitioner (Id.). The Jane Doe Doctor stated that she would

not send him to a gastroenterologist, even after he gave her a copy of the records

1 The exact date of the appointment is also not clear because he notes both March 25, 2025, and

January 8, 2025 (Doc. 17, p. 3).

suggesting that he be scheduled for a referral (Id. at pp. 3-4). Lujano also asked for a

special diet tray for his diverticulitis, but she also refused that request (Id. at p. 4). Despite

Lujano having a previous order for a referral to a gastroenterologist, the unknown doctor

refused to schedule an appointment (Id.). The Jane Doe doctor also failed to take a blood

test to determine Lujano’s blood count (Id. at p. 5).

On December 23, 2024, Lujano told Sergeant Mellendori that there was blood in

the toilet and he was in a lot of pain (Doc. 17, p. 4). Mellendori directed Lujano to submit

a sick call request slip, even after Lujano informed him that it was an emergency (Id.).

Lujano argues that Mellendori’s actions violated prior protocols requiring the medical

illness be treated in a timely fashion (Id.). Lujano alleges that his bleeding constituted a

medical emergency (Id. at p. 5).

Preliminary Dismissals

Although Lujano identifies Warden Jeremiah Brown, Medical Director

Cunningham, Latoya Hughes, and John Doe #1 correctional counselor in the case caption,

he fails to include any allegations against them in his statement of claim. These high-

ranking officials cannot be liable simply because of their positions of authority because

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

under Section 1983. See Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). Nor are there

any allegations to suggest these officials were aware of Lujano’s need for care or acted

with deliberate indifference in providing him care. See Qian v. Kautz, 168 F.3d 949, 955

(7th Cir. 1999) (stating that the relevant inquiry is whether defendants “actually knew

about the plaintiff’s condition, not whether a reasonable official should have known”).

Any potential claim against these individuals is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Lujano also alleges that Mellendori delayed his medical care and violated the

prison’s rules in delaying his care. A delay in treatment can amount to deliberate

indifference if the “delay exacerbated the injury or unnecessarily prolonged an inmate’s

pain.” See Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012). But Lujano fails to allege how

long his care was delayed by Mellendori, nor does he indicate how his symptoms

progressed after speaking to Mellendori. He only notes that he spoke to Mellendori on

one occasion about blood in his stool, and Mellendori directed him to file a sick call

request. Nothing in the statement of claim suggests the length of the delay in receiving

care, and he has not alleged that any delay exacerbated his condition. Thus, any claim

against Mellendori is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Finally, Lujano fails to state a claim against Wexford. The corporation can only be

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

violation. 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). Lujano fails to point to any

policy that led to the denial of care in this case. Thus, any claim against Wexford is also

DISMISSED without prejudice.

Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court designates the

following count:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against

Jane Doe Doctor for failing to properly treat Lujano’s

stomach ailments.

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 Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be

considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly

pleading standard.2

At this stage, Lujano states a viable claim for deliberate indifference against Jane

Doe Doctor. He alleges that she refused to reschedule his appointment with the

gastroenterologist despite the recommendations from the emergency room and prior

referral from Pinckneyville. To aid Lujano is identifying the Jane Doe Doctor, the Court

ADDS Warden Jeremiah Brown, in his official capacity only, for the sole purpose of

responding to discovery aimed at identifying the unknown doctor.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Jane Doe Doctor.

Warden Jeremiah Brown is ADDED to the case, in his official capacity only, to help

identify the Jane Doe Doctor. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED without

prejudice.

2 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (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 Clerk of Court shall prepare for Jeremiah Brown (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 Amended Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to Defendant

Brown’s place of employment. If 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 him, 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.

Because Warden Brown is in the case only to respond to discovery aimed at

identifying the Jane Doe Doctor, he does not need to file an Answer. After counsel has

entered his appearance for Brown, the Court will enter a scheduling order for discovery

regarding the Jane Doe.

Because Lujano’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 Lujano, 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, Lujano 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. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 21, 2025 Tl (

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the defendant of your lawsuit and

serve him with a copy of your Amended Complaint. After service has been achieved, the

defendant will enter an appearance. The Court will then enter a scheduling order for

discovery regarding the John Doe. Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared

for the defendant before filing any motions. Motions filed before the defendant's 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.