Griffin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN, #Y53580, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-01344-SMY

)

PERCY MYERS, LATOYA HUGHES, )

DEEDEE BROOKHART, )

JEREMIAH BROWN, CARISSA LUKING, )

NURSE THOMAS, LPN WELTY, )

LORIE CUNNINGHAM, GLEN BABICH, )

ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, )

LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, )

and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, Chief District Judge:

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, filed the instant Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101

et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks

monetary and injunctive relief for the alleged denial of medical care and accommodations for his

chronic bilateral shoulder dysfunction at Lawrence Correctional Center. Id. The Complaint is

now subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of prisoner

complaints and dismissal of portions that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for

relief, or request money damages from an immune defendant. Id.

The Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 1-54): Plaintiff is

diagnosed with bilateral shoulder dysfunction. Plaintiff also has a serious visual impairment: large

angle alternating exotropia, which causes double vision, nystagmus, uncontrolled eye movement,

and loss of depth perception, as diagnosed by doctors in North Carolina, New Mexico, and Illinois.

Id. at 6-8. Both conditions qualify him for accommodation under the ADA and RA.1

Plaintiff transferred into IDOC custody from the State of New Mexico in 2022, under an

interstate corrections compact with the New Mexico prison system. Id. at 6. At all relevant times,

Wexford Health Sources was the contracted health provider for the New Mexico corrections

system and IDOC. Pursuant to this contract, Wexford provided medical staff and care to inmates

in New Mexico and Illinois facilities. Id. at 13. When Plaintiff transferred into Stateville Northern

Reception Center, Wexford employees quickly confirmed his handicapped status and placed him

in an ADA cell on August 26, 2022. Id. at 9-10. Wexford also granted his request for

accommodations for his shoulder dysfunction that included “handcuff/medical restraints in front

due to shoulder injury. Expiration: indefinite.” Id. Plaintiff transferred to Lawrence Correctional

Center on September 16, 2022. Id. at 10. He was placed in an ADA cell in administrative detention

and has remained there ever since. Id. at 10-11.

Dr. Percy Myers examined Plaintiff on September 24, 2022. Dr. Meyers reviewed

documentation supporting Plaintiff’s request for various accommodations, including front

restraints. Dr. Myers issued Plaintiff a permit for a waist chain restraint, left eye patch, orthotic

shoes, magnification card, digital audio book player in his cell, right knee sleeve, low bunk, and

low gallery housing. Id. at 11.

Dr. Myers met with Plaintiff again on October 29, 2022 and ordered physical therapy. Id.

at 12. Plaintiff attended physical therapy on November 16, December 1, and December 7, 2022.

1 In this case, Plaintiff focuses on his shoulder dysfunction, a condition that results in physical injury and shoulder

dislocation when he is cuffed or restrained behind his back. Id. at 13.

In January 2023, Warden DeeDee Brookhart and Assistant Warden Jeremiah Brown

announced that waist chain permits from 2022 were no longer valid. Id. at 14. They cited a new

administrative directive, which was revised to state: “Prior to any movement of the individual in

custody from area to area within the Administrative Detention Unit, the individual in custody shall

be handcuffed from behind.” Id. at 19-20. The previous version stated: “Prior to any movement

of the individual in custody from area to area within the Administrative Detention Unit, the

individual in custody shall be handcuffed from behind unless medically contradicted.” Id.

(emphasis added). Soon thereafter, a nurse practitioner cancelled Plaintiff’s permit for front

restraints for “non-medical reasons.” Id. at 15.

Plaintiff re-applied for ADA accommodations in writing on January 31, 2023, seeking

reinstatement of a permit for “front restraints only, no handcuffing behind the back, cuff in front

or on side with waist chains.” Id. He gave the request to IDOC Director Hughes, Warden

Brookhart, Assistant Warden Brown, ADA Coordinator/Health Care Unit Administrator (HCUA)

Cunningham, Wexford Regional Director Babich, and Dr. Myers. Warden Brookhart denied the

request on April 15, 2023, and IDOC Director Hughes denied it on July 2, 2023. No one else

responded. Id.

Plaintiff subsequently spoke or wrote to various defendants seeking reinstatement of his

permit for front restraints. He spoke separately to Brookhart, Brown, and Cunningham on

February 9, 2023. Id. at 16. Brookhart explained that she did not approve of Dr. Myers’s decision

to issue a permit and cancelled it. Id.

Plaintiff suffered from a dislocated shoulder after being cuffed or restrained behind his

back on February 10, 2023, March 3, 2023, and March 17, 2023. Id. at 17-24. Each time, he had

to “self-reduce” the injury before he was placed in front restraints and taken for treatment. On

February 11, 2023, Dr. Myers met with him after the first incident but refused to reinstate the

permit that was cancelled by his subordinate because “security overrides any medical and ADA

concern.” Id. at 16-17. He entered a note in his chart, stating “No permit for handcuffing.” Id.

On February 23, 2023, Nurse Thomas refused to examine Plaintiff’s right shoulder

complaints. The nurse told Plaintiff that no ADA accommodation would be made, and “a decision

has been made to not follow the recommendations of the orthopedic specialist.” Id. at 18. Two

days later, Warden Brookhart reminded Plaintiff that she and ADA Coordinator Cunningham were

under no obligation to provide him with the accommodation he requested. On March 17, 2023,

Nurse Luking said “nothing could be done” about Plaintiff’s shoulder and cited the new

administrative directive. Id. On March 22, 2023, Nurse Welty cited the same directive when

refusing any accommodation for Plaintiff’s shoulder dysfunction, referral to a nurse practitioner,

or referral to a specialist. Id. at 20-21.

Plaintiff was denied reasonable accommodation for his serious shoulder dysfunction at

Lawrence from January through March 22, 2023. In addition to the denial of ADA

accommodations, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with necessary medical care that included

examination of his shoulder injuries, referral to a specialist, physical therapy, or other treatment.

Wexford had a custom or policy of failing to meet its contracted obligation to provide inmate

medical care and reasonable disability accommodations in order to save on costs. Id. at 24.

Discussion

The Court designates the following claims consistent with Plaintiff’s designation of the

claims in his Complaint:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim

against Defendants Myers, Luking, Thomas, Welty, Cunningham, Babich,

Hughes, Brookhart, and Brown for their inadequate treatment of Plaintiff’s

shoulder dysfunction at Lawrence from January through March 2023.

Count 2: ADA and/or RA claim against the IDOC, Lawrence Correctional Center,

Wexford Health Sources, Myers, Hughes, Brookhart, Brown, Luking,

Thomas, Welty, Babich, and Cunningham for denying Plaintiff reasonable

accommodation, including a waist chain restraint, for his disabilities

stemming from bilateral shoulder dysfunction at Lawrence from January

2023 through March 22, 2023.

Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford Health Sources for maintaining

a custom, policy, or practice of denying adequate medical care and

reasonable ADA accommodations to prisoners, including Plaintiff from

January 2023 through March 2023.

Count 4: Breach of contract claim against Wexford Health Sources for failing to

provide adequate medical care and ADA accommodations to Plaintiff as a

third-party beneficiary.

Any other claim mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered dismissed

without prejudice as inadequately pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570

(2007) (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.”).

Preliminary Dismissals

The Eleventh Amendment bars lawsuits against states for money damages in federal courts.

Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001). The Illinois Department of Corrections is

a state government agency and is not considered a “person” under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official

capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”). Similarly, Lawrence Correctional Center is a division of

the IDOC and is not a “person” subject to a § 1983 suit. See Will, 491 U.S. at 71. Thus, Lawrence

Correctional Center and all § 1983 claims against the IDOC will be dismissed. However, as

explained below, IDOC will remain a defendant for the ADA/RA claims.

Count 1

To state an Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of medical care, a plaintiff must plead

facts suggesting that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and (2) each

defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469,

475 (7th Cir. 2017). An objectively serious condition is one that has been diagnosed by a physician

as needing treatment, one that would be obvious to a lay person, or one that significantly affects

an individual’s daily activities due to chronic or substantial pain. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d

1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has articulated a viable claim for deliberate indifference to

his bilateral shoulder dysfunction against Defendants Myers, Luking, Thomas, Welty,

Cunningham, Babich, Hughes, Brookhart, and Brown.

Count 2

Plaintiff’s allegations also state a claim under the ADA and/or RA against the relevant state

department or agency, i.e., the IDOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(b); Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of

Corrs, 684 F.3d 667, 670, n.2 (7th Cir. 2012) (individual capacity claims are not available; the

proper defendant is the agency or its director in his/her official capacity). Therefore, Count 2 will

proceed against the IDOC and will be dismissed against all other defendants.

Count 3

Wexford is a private corporation responsible for providing medical staff and inmate

medical care at Lawrence. However, Wexford cannot be liable on this basis alone because

respondeat superior liability is not recognized under § 1983. Shields v. Illinois Dept. of Corr.,

746 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Iskander v. Village of Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126, 128 (7th

Cir. 1982)). Wexford will only be liable for deliberate indifference if an unconstitutional policy

or practice of the corporation caused the constitutional deprivation.

Here, Plaintiff alleges Wexford maintained a custom, policy, or practice of denying

medical care and ADA accommodations to save on costs, and he suffered serious injuries and pain

as a result. The Complaint thus states a viable claim against Wexford Health Sources.

Count 4

Plaintiff’s contract claim, based on his status as a third-party beneficiary of the contract

between the IDOC and Wexford, fails because a contract claim does not amount to a constitutional

violation. See Taake v. Cnty. of Monroe, 530 F.3d 538, 542-43 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

As such, this claim will be dismissed.

Injunctive Relief

The Warden of Lawrence Correctional Center (currently Jeremiah Brown) is named as a

defendant in an individual capacity. This defendant will also be named in an official capacity for

purposes of carrying out any injunctive relief ordered in this case.2 See Gonzales v. Feinerman,

663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011) (warden is proper defendant for injunctive relief claim as he

would be responsible for ensuring that any injunctive relief is implemented).

Disposition

The Complaint (Doc. 1) survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as follows:

• COUNT 1 will proceed against Defendants Myers, Luking, Thomas, Welty,

Cunningham, Babich, Hughes, Brookhart, and Brown.

• COUNT 2 will proceed against Defendant Illinois Department of Corrections.

• COUNT 3 will proceed against Defendant Wexford Health Sources.

• ALL OTHER CLAIMS (including COUNT 4) against ALL OTHER

DEFENDANTS are DISMISSSED without prejudice.

2 Plaintiff does not seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction under FED. R. CIV. P. 65. The Court

therefore construes his request as one for injunctive relief at the close of the case.

• The WARDEN OF LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER (currently

Jeremiah Brown) is ADDED in an official capacity to implement any injunctive

relief ordered herein.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants PERCY MYERS, LATOYA HUGHES,

DEEDEE BROOKHART, CARISSA LUKING, NURSE THOMAS, LPN WELTY, LORIE

CUNNINGHAM, GLEN BABICH, ILLINOIS DEPTARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, and JEREMIAH BROWN (individual and official

capacity): (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, 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 the Defendant, and the Court will require the

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 and 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 and Local Rule 8.2, Defendants need only respond to the issues

stated in this Merit Review Order.

Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment includes

the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the

costs, even though he was granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of

Court and the opposing parties 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).

The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to TERMINATE LAWRENCE

CORRECTIONAL CENTER as a defendant in CM/ECF and ENTER the Court’s standard

HIPAA-Qualified Protective Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 2, 2026

s/ Staci M. Yandle_____

STACI M. YANDLE

Chief U.S. District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

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

them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been achieved, Defendants will enter an

appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date

of this Order to receive the Defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days

or more. When Defendants have filed their 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 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 this time, unless specifically directed to do so.