KEITH NELSON v. SUSAN SCHNIERS, PATRICK GONVALVES, and NURSE TARA

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KEITH NELSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-01133-GCS

)

SUSAN SCHNIERS, )

PATRICK GONVALVES, )

and )

NURSE TARA, )

)

Defendants.1 )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge:

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Currently before the Court is Defendant Nurse Tara’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint with prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. PROC. Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 29, 32).

Specifically, Defendant Nurse Tara argues that the Plaintiff’s complaint against her must

be dismissed for three reasons: (1) the complaint fails to establish she was personally

involved; (2) she is entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) Plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies. Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. 31). Based on reasons

delineated below, the Court DENIES the motion.

Plaintiff Keith Nelson, an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”), who is currently incarcerated at Graham Correctional Center, brings this

action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while at

1 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to change Defendants names on the

docket as they appear in the answers. See (Doc. 27, 28).

chronic medical condition, sarcoidosis, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from a chronic medical condition, sarcoidosis,

which causes chest pains. (Doc. 1, p. 9). On September 25, 2024, he was suffering from

chest pains and having difficulty breathing. When Nurse Susan passed his cell while

handing out medications on the wing, Plaintiff informed her of his pain and breathing

issues. Id. Correctional Officer Gonvalves was present with Nurse Susan when Plaintiff

spoke to her. Nurse Susan told Plaintiff that to receive medical care, a medical code would

have to be called by the officer. Id. But Gonvalves refused to call a medical code for

assistance, even after Plaintiff explained that his chest pain and breathing issues were

triggered by being placed in handcuffs for five hours during a recent shakedown. Id.

Plaintiff later spoke to Sergeant Haper while he was making rounds and informed

him of his chest pains. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff explained that Nurse Susan said the only

way he would get care is if a medical code was called. Plaintiff continued to press his call

button for several hours until another correctional officer approached and explained that

Nurse Tara was in the building and would come to see him after she got set up. Id. But

the correctional officer never returned, and Plaintiff never heard from Nurse Tara. Id.

Plaintiff spent the entire day in pain due to the lack of medical care.

During the following shift, other inmates began yelling for staff to obtain medical

care for Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Sergeant Dillard came to his cell, and Plaintiff explained

that he was denied medical care from Gonvalves and Nurse Susan. Id. A porter later told

Plaintiff that Nurse Tara told him Plaintiff was scheduled to be seen the next morning. Id.

On October 13, 2024, during a sick call, a nurse realized that Plaintiff was having

went 20 days from his initial complaints regarding his condition before receiving care. Id.

On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff saw a nurse practitioner and/or doctor and was given a

waist chain permit to prevent the breathing issues caused by being cuffed behind his

back. Id. On October 25, 2024, Nurse Practitioner Ashitti ordered x-rays and prescribed

him a steroid inhaler for his breathing issues. Id. Ashitti noted that he may eventually

need a referral to an outside specialist. Plaintiff alleges that he wrote numerous letters

and grievances to the healthcare administrator or the warden. Id

On July 17, 2025, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, conducted a review of

the complaint and allowed Plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth Amendment deliberate

indifference claim against Susan Schniers, Patrick Gonvalves and Nurse Tara for delaying

treatment for sarcoidosis. (Doc. 9).2

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) addresses the legal sufficiency of the

plaintiff's claim for relief, not the merits of the case or whether the plaintiff will ultimately

prevail. See Gociman v. Loyola University of Chicago, 41 F.4th 873, 885 (7th Cir. 2022)

(citations omitted). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court must construe the

complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept as true all well-pleaded facts,

and draw all possible inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Yash Venture Holdings, LLC v.

2 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. See 28 U.S.C. 19115A(b).

omitted). The complaint will survive a motion to dismiss only if it alleges facts sufficient

to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 556 (2007); Orr v. Shicker, 147 F.4th 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2025); Lewis v. AbbVie Inc.,

No. 24-3121, 2025 WL 2527461, at *3 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2025) (citations omitted). “A claim

has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Hess v. Garcia, 72 F.4th 753, 758 (7th Cir.

2023).

DISCUSSION

First, Nurse Tara argues that the complaint is devoid of any mention of her

deliberately ignoring Plaintiff, that the complaint does not state whether she knew of

Plaintiff’s condition, and that if there was any alleged deprivation by her it was not

sufficiently serious. Plaintiff counters that Nurse Tara was made aware of his condition

by two people and that despite this knowledge she did not go to the cell to check on him

and she did not call him down to the nurse sick call line. Plaintiff further contends that

Nurse Tara did not render medical assistance to him until after he saw the physician

assistant.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, and the

deliberate indifference to the “serious medical needs of a prisoner constitutes the

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain forbidden by the Constitution.” Donald v.

Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 982 F.3d 451, 457-458 (7th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). A

prisoner is entitled to “reasonable measures to meet a substantial risk of serious harm”—

dissatisfaction with a medical professional’s prescribed course of treatment does not give

rise to a successful deliberate indifference claim unless the treatment is so “blatantly

inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreatment likely to seriously aggravate the

prisoner’s condition.” Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996)(citation omitted).

To state such a claim, a prisoner must plead facts and allegations suggesting that

(1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and (2) the defendant acted

with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id. “[D]eliberate indifference may be

found where an official knows about unconstitutional conduct and facilitates, approves,

condones, or turns a blind eye to it.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 781 (7th Cir. 2015).

As the Court previously found, Plaintiff, at this stage of the proceedings, states a

viable claim for deliberate indifference against Nurse Tara. He alleges that Nurse Tara

was aware of his need for medical care but did not immediately schedule him for an

appointment. A delay in providing necessary medical treatment may amount to

deliberate indifference if it resulted in unnecessary suffering. See Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d

859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012); Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 662 (7th Cir. 2004). Accepting as true all

well-pled factual allegations and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor,

the undersigned finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts, albeit scant, to state a claim

against Nurse Tara for delaying treatment.

As to Nurse Tara’s arguments regarding qualified immunity and the failure to

exhaust administrative remedies, the Court finds that these issues are premature for

resolution at this stage in the litigation. The Court will set a briefing scheduling on the

issue of administrative remedies after all parties have answered the complaint. If

Plaintiff's claims survive the exhaustion of administrative remedies phase, the Court will

enter a final scheduling order. Thus, the issue regarding qualified immunity is better

suited for determination after discovery has been completed via summary judgment, if

necessary. See Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (noting that courts

hesitate to dismiss complaints on qualified immunity grounds “[b]ecause an immunity

defense usually depends on the facts of the case” beyond the allegations of the

complaint).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant Nurse Tara’s motion to dismiss

Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. PRoc. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 29).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 21, 2026. Digitally signed by

AMnk □□ Ada. 70200121

13:20:33 -06'00'

GILBERTC.SISON □□□

United States Magistrate Judge

Page 6 of 6