# Jones

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · February 12, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11261094

## Case

- **Full name:** Korey Jones v. Carri Morris, Paige Salger, Ms. Nicholson, Ms. Clause, Mr. Davison, Ms. Crisco, Dr. Jackson, Ms. Winger, Dr. Bob Blum, Ms. C. Regelsperger, Amanda Choate, Dr. Babich, Dr. Devenney, Nurse Rachel, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** February 12, 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/11261094

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the relevant inquiry is whether defendants “actually knew about the plaintiff’s condition, not whether a reasonable official should have known”
- applying municipal liability to private corporations performing governmental functions

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KOREY JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-cv-2089-NJR

CARRI MORRIS, PAIGE SALGER,
MS. NICHOLSON, MS. CLAUSE, MR.
DAVISON, MS. CRISCO, DR.
JACKSON, MS. WINGER, DR. BOB
BLUM, MS. C. REGELSPERGER,
AMANDA CHOATE, DR. BABICH, DR.
DEVENNEY, NURSE RACHEL, and
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Korey Jones, who at the time he filed his Complaint was an inmate of the
Illinois Department of Corrections incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center,1 brings
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the
Complaint, Jones alleges that he was denied his medications for his mental health
conditions and chronic pain, despite repeated requests for his prescribed medications.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the 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

1 Jones has since been released from custody (Doc. 14).
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 Complaint
Jones alleges that when he initially transferred to Menard he was housed in
restrictive housing (Doc. 1, p. 9). He does not indicate the date of his transfer. While being
processed by staff at Menard, he informed them of the medications he took for his
depression and bipolar disorder, including lithium and Remeron (Id.). He also informed

them that he took pain medications for a bullet that was still lodged behind his left knee,
as well as gabapentin for nerve damage to the same knee (Id.).
Jones alleges that he spoke to numerous staff about his need to have his
prescriptions filled at Menard. He spoke to mental health worker Paige Salger on many
occasions about his need for his medications (Doc. 1, p. 9). She acknowledged his need

but noted that the prison was understaffed (Id.). He spoke to Ms. Nicholson every week
when she walked through the gallery and told her about his diagnosis and medications,
but she informed Jones that she was unable to help him (Id. at p. 10). He also informed
Ms. Clause, Ms. Crisco, and Ms. Winger when they walked the gallery, but they merely
stated that they were unable to help (Id. at pp. 10-11).

Jones alleges that he had appointments with Dr. Davison and informed him that
he had started to self-harm and play with his feces (Doc. 1, p. 10). Davison informed him
that he was new to the prison, and he believed Jones was trying to demand specific
medications (Id.). He stated he would document Jones’s concerns (Id.).
In February or March 2025, Jones saw Dr. Jackson (Doc. 1, p. 11). He informed her
of his diagnosis, the medications that he took, and the name of the doctor who had

previously prescribed the medications (Id.). At this point, Jones alleges he was without
his medications for seven or eight months (Id.). Dr. Jackson told Jones that he did not look
bipolar. When he questioned her about what a bipolar individual looked like, she
threatened to place him on watch and ordered officers to remove him from her office (Id.).
On several occasions, Jones wrote to Dr. Bob Blum about his need for pain
medications, but he never received a response (Doc. 1, p. 11). He also submitted sick call

request slips. He wrote to Dr. Babich and Dr. Devenney about his pain and need for his
prescribed medications, but he never saw them for care (Id. at p. 12). He also wrote to the
head of mental health, Carri Morris, informing her of his conditions, medications, and
pharmacy location, but she never wrote back to him (Id. at p. 14).
Jones attended several one-on-one appointments with C. Regelsperger and he

informed her of his diagnosis and medications (Doc. 1, p. 12). She directed him to submit
a grievance. He gave Amanda Choate a sick call about his pain medications, but she
cursed at him and stated that he could obtain his medications when he was released (Id.).
Nurse Rachel reviewed his outside medical records and apologized for being
understaffed (Id.). She blamed Wexford Health Sources, Inc. for the understaffing and

indicated that she was working to get Jones an appointment (Id.).
Jones blames Wexford and its understaffing of the healthcare unit for his inability
to receive his medications (Doc. 1, p. 13). He alleges that Wexford failed to examine
inmates like him with serious medical needs or provide proper care (Id.). Jones alleges
that he has yet to see a doctor at Menard due to the understaffing issues (Id.). He also
alleges that Wexford is required to identify and correct incompetent treatment, but it

failed to remedy Jones’s issues with his medications (Id.). Jones notes that numerous
nurses have stated that the reason he cannot see a doctor is due to understaffing.
Jones alleges that he went from August 21, 2024, until June 15, 2025, without his
medication for his mental health conditions (Doc. 1, p. 13). At the time he filed his
complaint, he still did not have medication for his pain and nerve damage (Id.).
Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following
counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Carri Morris, Paige Salger, Ms. Nicholson, Ms. Clause, Mr.
Davison, Ms. Crisco, Dr. Jackson, Ms. Winger, Dr. Bob
Blum, Ms. C. Regelsperger, Amanda Choate, Dr. Babich, Dr.
Devenney, and Nurse Rachel for failing to provide Jones
with his lithium, Remeron, gabapentin, and pain
medications.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford Health Sources,
Inc. for understaffing the healthcare unit as well as failing
to correct staff’s mistakes.

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 Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading
standard.2
Count 1

To successfully state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to
medical needs, a plaintiff must plead that he suffered from “an objectively serious
medical condition” and that a “state official was deliberately…indifferent” to that
condition. See Gileos v. Godinez, 914 F. 3d 1040, 1049 (7th Cir. 2019). A plaintiff must
demonstrate that the defendant’s actions were more than negligent, something

approaching intentional wrongdoing or recklessness. Holloway v. Delaware Cnty. Sheriff,
700 F.3d 1063, 1073 (7th Cir. 2012). Further, a plaintiff must demonstrate that each
defendant has knowledge of his condition and was personally involved in his care. Burks
v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[l]iability depends on each defendant’s
knowledge and actions”). A successful complaint generally alleges “the who, what,

when, where, and how…” See DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990).
At this stage, Jones states a viable claim for deliberate indifference against Paige
Salger, Ms. Nicholson, Ms. Clause, Mr. Davidson, Ms. Crisco, Dr. Jackson, Ms. Winger,
C. Regelsperger, and Amanda Choate. He alleges that he spoke to these officials
numerous times between August 21, 2025, and June 15, 2025, either as they made rounds

through the gallery or during medical and mental health appointments, and informed

2 This includes any claim against defendants in their official capacities. Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d
904, 918 (7th Cir. 2005) See also 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”).
them about his need for his prescriptions. Jones alleges that they each told him that they
were unable to help him, or in the case of Dr. Jackson, told him that he didn’t look bipolar.

Some, like Jackson and Amanda Choate, cursed at or threatened him. Jones alleges that
none of these officials acted to obtain his medications. At this stage, that is enough to state
a claim.
As to Nurse Rachel, however, Jones fails to allege that she acted with deliberate
indifference. He alleges that he spoke to Nurse Rachel and she acknowledged his issues
and indicated that she was working to get Jones seen by a provider. There are no

allegations that she ignored his request or denied him care. Her response that the prison
was understaffed and she was working to get him an appointment does not rise to the
level of deliberate indifference.
Jones also fails to state a claim against Dr. Bob Blum, Dr. Babich, Dr. Devenney,
and Carri Morris. Jones alleges that he wrote to these individuals about his need for

medication, but he fails to provide pertinent information about these interactions. Jones
fails to allege when he wrote to each provider, the contents of those letters, and whether
they received the letters. He alleges that Paige Salger informed him that Morris indicated
they were months behind, but he fails to allege when this conversation took place. Nor is
there any indication that Morris was aware of his need for his specific medications. Jones

fails to adequately allege that these providers were aware of his conditions and his need
for medications. 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”). Thus, Count 1 shall proceed against
Paige Salger, Ms. Nicholson, Ms. Clause, Mr. Davidson, Ms. Crisco, Dr. Jackson, Ms.
Winger, C. Regelsperger, and Amanda Choate, but is DISMISSED without prejudice as

to Nurse Rachel, Dr. Bob Blum, Dr. Babich, Dr. Devenney, and Carri Morris.
Count 2
Turning to Jones’s claim in Count 2, Wexford 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). Here, Jones alleges that he was denied care due to the
understaffing of the healthcare unit by Wexford. Jones alleges that numerous medical
staff told him that he could not see a doctor to obtain his medications because of the
understaffing by Wexford. Thus, Jones states a viable claim against Wexford for its
practice of understaffing the healthcare unit at Menard. But to the extent that Jones alleges

Wexford hired incompetent staff or failed to correct staff, he fails to state a claim. Wexford
cannot be liable for the actions of its employees because there is no supervisory liability
under Section 1983. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001).
Motion for Counsel
In addition to his Complaint, Jones filed a motion for counsel (Doc. 2). Jones notes

that he wrote several attorneys, but no one were willing to take his case. Jones notes that
he only has a grade school education and suffers from mental health issues. But given the
early stages of the litigation process, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the need for the
assistance of counsel. See Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[U]ntil
the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel ...
cannot be gauged.”).3 There is nothing currently pending that would require counsel.

Once Defendants have filed their Answers, the Court will enter a scheduling order
explaining the next steps in the litigation process. If Jones continues to experience
difficulties in litigating his case at that time, he may resubmit his request for counsel. At
this time, counsel is not needed, and his motion is DENIED.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Paige Salger,

Ms. Nicholson, Ms. Clause, Mr. Davidson, Ms. Crisco, Dr. Jackson, Ms. Winger, C.
Regelsperger, and Amanda Choate, but is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Nurse
Rachel, Dr. Bob Blum, Dr. Babich, Dr. Devenney, and Carri Morris. Count 2 shall proceed
against Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Paige Salger, Ms. Nicholson, Ms. Clause, Mr.

Davidson, Ms. Crisco, Dr. Jackson, Ms. Winger, C. Regelsperger, Amanda Choate, and
Wexford Health Sources, Inc.: (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 Jones. If a defendant fails

to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days

3 In evaluating the motion for counsel, the Court applies the factors discussed in Pruitt v. Mote,
503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007), and related authority.
from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal
service on that defendant, 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.
If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Jones, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the defendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, 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. Section 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merit Review Order.

Because Jones’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 Jones, 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, Jones 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: February 12, 2026 7 i

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
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 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 all
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 this time, unless specifically
directed to do so.

10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11261094. Public record. Not legal advice.