# Moore

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · February 4, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11251664

## Case

- **Full name:** Dion Moore v. Anthony Wills, Alisa Dearmond, Nurse Liz, Mike Moldenhauer, Nurse Jess, P. Devenney, Connie Dolce
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** February 4, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11251664

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that 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”
- noting that a delay in treatment must also cause prolonged suffering or a discrete injury to state a claim

## Opinion text

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DION MOORE, K97331, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-02050-GCS
)
ANTHONY WILLS, )
ALISA DEARMOND, )
NURSE LIZ, )
MIKE MOLDENHAUER, )
NURSE JESS, )
P. DEVENNEY, )
CONNIE DOLCE, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Dion Moore, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently detained at Menard Correctional Center, brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional
rights. (Doc. 1). Specifically, Moore alleges that the defendants have violated his rights
by failing to provide medical treatment for multiple conditions.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A.1 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

1 The Court has jurisdiction to resolve Moore’s motions and to screen his Complaint
due to his consent to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge (Doc. 5) and the limited
consent to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandums
of Understanding between the IDOC, Wexford, and this Court.
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. § 1915A(b).
THE COMPLAINT
Moore alleges that he first began to experience severe stomach pain and cramps in
2022. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Upon transfer to Menard on August 30, 2023, he reported his pain,
headaches, bloody stools, and blood in his vomit by filing a grievance. He was seen by
Defendant Dearmond, who sent him for a colonoscopy. Id. The colonoscopy revealed an

H. pylori infection. Moore was seen by Defendant Moldenhauer, who told him he would
receive 10 days of antibiotics to treat the infection. Id. at p. 7. Despite the order for 10 days
of medication, he alleged he only received 6-7 days’ worth because Nurse Jess forgot to
bring the medication. Id. Moore wrote a grievance about the issue and notified Defendant
Moldenhauer to no avail.

Moore reports that he began to lose more weight, losing 60 pounds in a few
months. His stomach pain, bloody stools, and headaches intensified. He alleged that
Nurse Kendra provided materials for stool samples but never collected the samples for
testing. Moore placed multiple sick calls for weeks and months but was often told his sick
call requests were cancelled. On July 23, 2024, Moore filed a grievance recounting his

problems. Around this time, Moore was seen for a follow-up visit at an outside hospital.
He had another colonoscopy, and it was discovered that he still had H. Pylori. During the
second colonoscopy, a hemorrhoid was also discovered and surgically repaired. Moore
was to be given another course of 10 days of antibiotics, but Nurse Liz bypassed his cell
despite knowing he needed medication. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Moore filed a grievance about the
medication to no avail. He alleged he had gone more than a year without seeing a doctor,

and his condition continued to deteriorate. Moore alleged he had filed daily grievances
for six months to no avail.
In addition to his stomach problems, Moore complained about back and left-side
pain. He was seen at an outside hospital and was diagnosed with nerve damage and
carpal tunnel syndrome. He was promised “medical equipment” and pain medication,
but he received nothing.

Moore also complained that in August of 2025 he was assaulted while restrained.
He alleged that he suffered severe injuries to his face, head, and body, but he received no
treatment and lost consciousness several times. He claims he told a male nurse about his
need for care, but he had filed previous grievances on the nurse, and the nurse told him
he deserved it. (Doc. 1, p. 10).

On October 25, 2025, Moore had severe pain in his chest, body, and stomach, and
he struggled to breathe. His current cell was positioned such that he could not get the
attention of staff in case of an emergency. Without assistance, he lost consciousness and
when he awoke, he vomited. Moore was told he was on the list to be seen by a nurse on
October 25, 2025, but he alleged Officer Rittner left him in his cell that day. (Doc. 1, p. 10).

As of the filing of his complaint on November 5, 2025, Moore alleged he was still
experiencing bloody stools, blood in his vomit, severe chest and stomach pains, left-side
pain, headaches, and dizziness. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
Moore seeks medical treatment, the installation of a call system in cells, the
removal of solid metal cell doors, a permanent transfer to another prison, termination of

staff involved in the complaint, and monetary compensation.
PRELIMINARY DISMISSALS
Moore named Defendants Wills, Dolce, and Devenney in the caption but provided
no specific factual allegations about their involvement in his medical care. Naming a
person in the caption, without providing any factual assertions, is insufficient to state a
claim. See Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401 n.8 (7th Cir. 1994). Moore also discussed several

people in his complaint that he did not name in the list of defendants—Nurse Kendra,
Officer Ritter, and an unnamed male nurse. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires
that all defendants be listed in the case caption of the complaint to state a valid claim.
Therefore, Moore has failed to plead adequate claims against Wills, Dolce, Devenney,
Kendra, Ritter, or the unnamed male nurse.

In addition to Moore’s complaints about his stomach pain, blood in his vomit and
stool, and the H. Pylori infection, he also complains in passing about nerve damage,
injuries from an assault in August of 2025, and some kind of medical emergency in
October of 2025. Regardless of whether these allegations suggest a serious medical issue,
Moore has failed to link these injuries or harms to specific defendants. Moore also has not

said much about which defendants, if any, he has notified of his ongoing stomach issues.
Without more detail about each of Moore’s conditions, and without information about
who he contacted for care, he cannot proceed with claims about these issues. To the extent
that Moore seeks any type of immediate injunctive relief related to these issues, he also
has not provided sufficient information to support such a request.
DISCUSSION

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide
the pro se action into the following counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Dearmond for her handling of Moore’s ailments
in or around August of 2023;

Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Moldenhauer for the aftercare provided
following Moore’s initial colonoscopy and H. Pylori
diagnosis;

Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Nurses Liz and Jess for failing to provide Moore’s full 10-
day course of antibiotics.

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 the Twombly pleading standard.2
Count 1
An Eighth Amendment claim arising from the denial of medical care consists of
an objective and a subjective component. See Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 439–440 (7th
Cir. 2010). Moore must show that he suffered from a serious medical condition (i.e., an

2 See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (noting that 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”).
objective standard) and also show that each defendant responded with deliberate
indifference (i.e., a subjective standard). Id. To satisfy the subjective component, a

prisoner must demonstrate that an official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to
inmate health. See Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Neither medical
malpractice, nor mere disagreement with a doctor’s medical judgment will amount to
deliberate indifference. Id. Additionally, an inmate is not entitled to demand specific care,
and a medical professional may choose from a range of acceptable courses of treatment.
See Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2019).

While Moore describes severe pain, blood in his stool and vomit, and weight loss,
his allegations against Defendant Dearmond do not show that she personally acted with
deliberate indifference to his situation. Moore alleges that when he was seen by
Dearmond she noted deficiencies in his chart, corrected them, and sent him for a
colonoscopy. There is no indication that Moore ever saw Dearmond again after the

colonoscopy. Instead, Moore seems to explicitly say he followed up with Moldenhauer.
Given that Moore’s sole interaction with Dearmond appears to have resulted in needed
testing, and there is no indication she had any further role in his care, Count 1 cannot
proceed against Dearmond.
Count 2

Moore faults Defendant Moldenhauer for acknowledging his need for 10 days of
antibiotics but failing to act when notified that Moore did not get the full course of
antibiotics. Moore alleges without the full course of treatment he continued to suffer, and
his infection was not fully treated and required a second round of treatment. These
allegations are sufficient to suggest that Moldenhauer may have exhibited deliberate
indifference to Moore’s need for adequate follow-up care after the first colonoscopy.

Count 2 may proceed.
Count 3
Moore alleges that Nurse Jess failed to bring the full 10 days of his first round of
antibiotics because she forgot to bring them to the cellhouse, and Nurse Liz walked by
his cell despite knowing he needed antibiotics during the second round of treatment. A
missed dose of medication can, in some limited circumstances, be sufficient to state an

Eighth Amendment claim. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Gavin, No. 22 C 02285, 2023 WL 2161663,
at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2023) (collecting cases concerning missed doses of medication).
But see Fields v. Miller, Case No. 20-cv-1211-pp, 2021 WL 1400907, at *1-2 (E.D. Wisc. April
14, 2021) (collecting cases on a missed dose of medication and finding that a single missed
dose without any adverse effect was not sufficient to state a claim); Perez v. Fenoglio, 792

F.3d 768, 777-778 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that a delay in treatment must also cause
prolonged suffering or a discrete injury to state a claim). Here, Moore’s allegations
suggest that he may have suffered harm without the full course of antibiotics, but he does
not provide much information about how many doses he missed or if it was always these
two nurses responsible for the missed doses. As it stands, it sounds like he may have only

missed a dose from each provider once, and a single missed dose is generally not
sufficient to sustain a claim. See, e.g., Brown v. Millar, 2024 WL 4815285, Case No. 3:24-cv-
000304-GCS (S.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024) (collecting cases for the proposition that a one-time
misadministration of medication generally does not support a claim for deliberate
indifference). Additionally, Moore’s allegation that Nurse Liz forgot his medication is
more akin to negligence than intentional wrongdoing. Claim 3 will be dismissed as

insufficient. If Moore would like to further pursue this claim, he must provide more
details about how many doses he missed, if the missed doses were always the
responsibility of one nurse or more than one, and what specific symptoms or harm he
experienced when he missed doses.
DISPOSITION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Count 2 of the Complaint (Doc. 1) survives

initial screening as described above against Mike Moldenhauer. By contrast, Count 1
against Alisa Dearmond is insufficient to state a claim, and Count 3 against Nurse Jess
and Liz is also insufficient. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against
Defendants Wills, Devenney, and Dolce. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
TERMINATE Dearmond, Nurse Liz, Nurse Jess, Anthony Wills, P. Devenney, and

Connie Dolce.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare for Defendant Mike Moldenhauer:
(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 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 transfer or other 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. See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(b).
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Digitally signed by
- Judge Sison
AV Med 5 9
DATED: February 4, 2026. Date: 2026.02.04
11:11:14 -06'00'
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate 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 as 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 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.

Page 10 of 10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11251664. Public record. Not legal advice.