Burnom

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOHN BURNOM, N53396, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-2018-DWD

)

JEREMIAH BROWN, )

JEREMY KOHN, )

LATOYA HUGHES, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:

Plaintiff John Burnom, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC),

brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his

constitutional rights at Lawrence Correctional Center. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that

the defendants are refusing to provide a milk substitute directed by physicians. Plaintiff’s

Complaint (Doc. 1) is now before the Court for preliminary review 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)-(b). 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). At this juncture, the factual

allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth

Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff suffers from chronic kidney disease and has been authorized to see an

outside physician to manage his condition. (Doc. 1 at 5). On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s

outside doctor (Temitope, a non-party) recommended that he be provided with

powdered milk, and that his phosphorus levels be monitored. (Doc. 1 at 6). In July of

2024, Plaintiff was confirmed to be lactose intolerant by the prison medical staff. (Doc. 1

at 5). On February 27, 2025, medical director Susan Cole directed the therapeutic diet

with a notation about powdered milk. (Doc. 1 at 6-7). On March 7, 2025, a nurse

practitioner at the prison issued him a therapeutic diet that directed powdered lactose

free milk. (Doc. 1 at 6).

Plaintiff alleges that despite these orders, Defendant Jeremy Kohn has refused to

provide the prescribed therapeutic diet. Plaintiff grieved the issue, and his second

grievance was deemed an emergency by Defendant Brown, the Warden. However, when

the grievance officer responded, they indicated that Plaintiff would not be provided with

the diet because IDOC does not allow allergy-based diets. The grievance response says:

Per FSPM Kohn, “This Dietary Department follows the policies set forth by IDOC. IDOC does not recognize allergy diets”

Per the Therapeutic Diet Manual, it states:

Diets deemed to be necessary by staff physicians that are not on the approved diet list are to be approved by the Agency

Medical Director prior to implementation,

IDOC THERAPEUTIC DIET MANUAL

FOOD SENSITIVITYAND ALLERGIES

here are numerous individuals who display intolerances to food or elements of the environment. These intolerances may

result in gastrointestinal irritation, nasal congestion, skin rashes and so forth. Generally these sensitives do not require

modification in the diet. As a rule the problems can be solved by simply avoiding the food that is known to cause the

istress.

Inmates in IDOC may demonstrate sensitivity or allergy to a large number of foods, thus it is not feasible or economical to

ttempt to provide diet modifications to meet all of their needs. For this reason there are no diets written or honored in IDOC

to acknowledge these sensitivities. It is therefore the responsibility of the health care unit to provide the individual with

ducation on how to avoid foods or groups of food that may cause problems. Therefore, as a rule, allergies and food

sensitivities are not recognized diets in IDOC

If itis determined that an allergy exists in an individual to a major food group or that the avoidance of the allergen

ompromises the individual's nutritional status, the Food Service Administrator and the Agency Medical Director must be

ontacted for further instructions. In such a situation a special diet may have to be written to accommodate the individual

need,

ensitivity to lactose, milk products, is quite common in our society. When there is an individual allergic to lactose, it is

highly recommended that Lactaid be ordered by the physician for the individuals. The use of these tablets allows the inmate

o consume milk products and at the same time not compromise his/her nutritional status.”

(Doc. 1 at 30). The grievance was rejected on technical grounds by the Administrative

Review Board. (Doc. 1 at 27).

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff faults Kohn, Brown, and IDOC Director Latoya Hughes

for failing to accommodate his diet after it was brought to their attention via his

grievance. Specifically, he complains that if there is a policy that would disallow his

medically prescribed diet, the policy is unconstitutional. Or, regardless, that the denial

of the diet is deliberate indifference. He claims that he is now forced to choose between

consuming lactose products to get needed minerals or foregoing adequate nutrition. He

alleges lactose gives him severe stomach pain, diarrhea, and vomiting, among other

things. Without a substitute, he claims he has lost weight, and he feels hungry and weak.

He seeks a preliminary injunction, declaratory, and compensatory damages. (Doc. 1 at

11).

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court will designate the following

claim:

Claim 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against

Defendants Kohn, Brown, and Hughes for their role in

denying Plaintiff the diet prescribed by an outside

physician and two prison medical providers.

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 claim that is mentioned

in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without

prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly. See Bell Atl. 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 that is plausible on its face”).

Analysis

In McDonald v. Hardy, 821 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2016), the Seventh Circuit reversed a

grant of summary judgment for prison administrators who cancelled all medical diets at

Stateville Correctional Center, including the Plaintiff’s low cholesterol diet. The

McDonald Court explained, “[w]here, as here, an inmate sues prison employees who are

not part of the medical staff, deliberate indifference can be shown with evidence that

those employees ignored or interfered with a course of treatment prescribed by a

physician.” 821 F.3d at 888. “Custodians are not excused from ensuring adequate

treatment for inmates with chronic or degenerative conditions simply because any

resulting harms may remain latent or have not yet reached the point of causing acute or

life-threatening conditions.” Id. at 889. “Interference with prescribed treatment is a well-

recognized example of how nonmedical prison personnel can display deliberate

indifference to inmates’ medical conditions. Id. at 890.

Plaintiff’s present allegations are on all fours with McDonald. He alleges that

multiple physicians have prescribed him a lactose-free diet with a milk substitute to

ensure he receives adequate nutrients. He claims that Defendant Kohn refused to honor

the diet, and Defendant Brown backed the decision in the grievance process. Claim 1

may proceed against Kohn and Brown.

Plaintiff also faults Defendant Hughes for denying his grievance on July 21, 2025,

but the grievance documents attached to his complaint do not support this contention.

On July 21, 2025, his grievance was returned for procedural reasons by an Administrative

Review Board staff person. (Doc. 1 at 27). There was no signature line on the form for

Hughes, and there is no indication Hughes was asked to endorse this procedural ruling.

Other than the grievance document, Plaintiff does not explain how Hughes was

personally made aware of the situation or how she participated in causing him harm.

Supervisors cannot be held liable for a § 1983 violation merely because their role as a

prison administrator. Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2009). On the allegations

presented, Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated Hughes’ role or involvement, so

Hughes will be dismissed without prejudice.

Within the complaint, Plaintiff also included a demand for immediate injunctive

relief related to his diet. However, he did not file a freestanding motion consistent with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. If Plaintiff wishes to further pursue the option of

injunctive relief while this lawsuit is pending, he shall file a separate motion. He should

take special care to describe his current medical situation, including the impact that he is

experiencing without the prescribed diet, and if he has been able to consult on-site or off-

site medical providers about the lack of the diet that they prescribed.

Disposition

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Claim 1 of the Complaint (Doc. 1) survives

against Defendants Kohn and Brown. By contrast, Claim 1 is insufficient against

Defendant Hughes, and the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE Hughes.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare for Defendants Kohn and Brown: (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 Defendants’ 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 cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the

employer shall furnish the Clerk with the 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. 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. § 1997e(g).

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

stated in this Merits Review Order.

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,

regardless of whether 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 change of 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 failure to prosecute. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard HIPAA Order in this case

because it will involve the exchange of medical records.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2025 /s/ David W. Dugan

________________________

DAVID W. DUGAN

United States District Judge

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 the complaint. It will

likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers,

but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all of 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 his time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

The Court wishes to remind the Plaintiff that litigation is often viewed a series of hurdles

that the Plaintiff must clear to get to another hurdle. Initial screening is such a hurdle, but

it is a very low one for the Plaintiff to clear. As noted above, surviving initial screening

only requires the bare statement of a claim that, if proven, could entitle Plaintiff to some

relief. At trial, he will need to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the facts alleged

actually occurred and that those facts satisfy the legal requirements for recovery. Trial is

the highest and most difficult of hurdles for any Plaintiff to clear.