Griffin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN, #Y53580, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-01219-SMY

)

LATOYA HUGHES, ANDREW WALTERS, )

DEE DEE BROOKHART, )

JEREMIAH BROWN, )

LORI CUNNINGHAM, PERCY MYERS, )

GENTRY, GLEN BABICH, )

CARISSA LUKING, WISE, )

LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, )

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, WEXFORD, )

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, and )

JOHN DOES # 1-12 (C/O’s Lawrence), )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, Chief Judge:

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

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserts violations of the Eighth Amendment, 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., and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief (Doc. 1).

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious

claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be

dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): Plaintiff is seriously

visually impaired1 and has a shoulder dysfunction which qualify him for accommodations under

the ADA and RA (Doc. 1, p. 6). Since August 25, 2022, he has been incarcerated in IDOC facilities

under an interstate corrections compact with the New Mexico prison system. Upon Plaintiff’s

initial arrival at Stateville Northern Reception Center, employees of Defendant Wexford Health

Sources (“Wexford”) confirmed his handicapped status and placed him in an ADA cell. On August

26, 2022, Wexford granted Plaintiff’s request for the accommodations listed in Exhibit 1 (Doc. 1,

pp. 32-33). He received a permit for low bunk, low gallery, left eye patch, magnification card,

digital talking book player in his cell, and front handcuffs due to his shoulder injury (Doc. 1, pp.

7, 32).

Wexford was the contracted health provider for the New Mexico corrections system as well

as the IDOC. Before Plaintiff’s arrival in Illinois, Wexford officials in New Mexico gave Plaintiff

all the accommodations listed in Exhibit 4: handicapped cell housing; ground floor cell; bottom

bunk; orderly assistance; fall prevention; no climbing, stairs, or heights over two feet; no hot or

sharp objects; no operating hazardous machinery; no driving; no uneven terrain; a talking digital

wrist watch; talking books; eye patch; eye glasses; raised line paper and bold pens; night light; and

wrist restraints in front with waist chains (Doc. 1, pp. 11, 41-42).

Plaintiff was transferred from Stateville to Lawrence Correctional Center on September

16, 2022. Lawrence officials told him the permit issued at Stateville was no longer valid and

1 Plaintiff has 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 (Doc. 1, pp. 8, 33-

36) (Exhibit 2).

placed him in a non-ADA-compliant cell (Doc. 1, p. 11). When Plaintiff complained, he was

moved to a handicapped cell (R8-CL-22), but its night light did not work.

Plaintiff provided documentation of his vision diagnoses to Defendants Dr. Gentry (doctor

of optometry) and Dr. Percy Myers in August and September 2022. At Plaintiff’s visit on

September 23, 2022, Dr. Gentry agreed with Plaintiff’s previous diagnoses but did not provide the

accommodations he requested (listed in Exhibit 4, Doc. 1, p. 42). (Doc. 1, p. 12). On September

24, 2022, Dr. Myers granted Plaintiff’s requests for an eye patch, magnification card, low bunk,

low gallery, and digital audiobook player in his cell, but denied the other ADA accommodations.

Plaintiff made numerous requests for the remaining ADA accommodations for his vison

impairment and fall prevention to Defendants Brookhart (Warden), Brown (Deputy Warden),

Cunningham (Health Service Administrator), Hughes (IDOC Director), Dr. Myers, Dr. Gentry,

Luking (FNP-C), Wise (FNP), Babich (Regional Medical Director), and Walters (ADA

Coordinator) between September 2022 and February 2024, but each refused to allow them (Doc.

1, pp. 13-15).

Plaintiff bought his own night light so he would not fall in the dark. On August 2, 2023,

Defendant Officers John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 confiscated the light because the other

defendants had not issued Plaintiff a permit for it (Doc. 1, p. 16).

On the night of August 17, 2023, Plaintiff fell, dislocating his left shoulder. His calls for

help were not answered and he did not see a medical provider until August 24, 2023, when the

nurse told Plaintiff he must see a nurse on three separate dates before he could see a nurse

practitioner or doctor (Doc. 1, p. 17). Dr. Gentry issued Plaintiff a night light medical permit on

October 27, 2023 (Doc. 1, p. 18).

In addition to the denial of ADA accommodations, Defendants Myers, Gentry, Luking,

Wise, Babich, and the John Does #3-12 failed to provide Plaintiff with necessary medical care,

including referral to an ophthalmologist and safety measures from September 28, 2022 through

the present (Doc. 1, pp. 18-20). Wexford had a custom or policy of contracting to provide adequate

medical care and reasonable disability accommodations to prisoners but failing to meet those

obligations in order to maximize their profits (Doc. 1, p. 19).

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claims in

this pro se action:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

claim against Myers, Gentry, Babich, Wise, Luking, Hughes,

Brookhart, Brown, Walters, Cunningham, and John Does #1-12, for

denying Plaintiff medical care and accommodations related to his

visual and physical disabilities.

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

Center, Wexford, Wexford Health Sources, Hughes, Brookhart,

Brown, Walters, Cunningham, Myers, Gentry, Wise, Luking,

Babich, and John Does #1 and #2 for denying Plaintiff reasonable

accommodations for his disabilities.

Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford and Wexford Health

Sources for maintaining a custom, usage, policy, or practice of

failing to provide adequate medical care and reasonable ADA

accommodations to prisoners, causing Plaintiff to be deprived of

medical care and ADA accommodations.

Count 4: Breach of contract claim against Wexford and Wexford Health

Sources for failing to provide adequate medical care and ADA

accommodations to Plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary.

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. See 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 that is

plausible on its face.”).

Preliminary Dismissals

Plaintiff cannot maintain an action for damages against the Illinois Department of

Corrections because it is a state government agency. That is because “neither a State nor its

officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). See also Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001)

(Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court for money damages). Likewise,

Lawrence Correctional Center, a division of the Illinois Department of Corrections, is not a

“person” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and is not subject to a § 1983 lawsuit. See

Will, 491 U.S. at 71. Accordingly, Lawrence Correctional Center will be dismissed from the case.

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

Discussion

Count 1

Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel

and unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical

needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state such a claim, a prisoner must

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

defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id. An objectively serious

condition includes a condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities or which

involves chronic and substantial pain. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference in Count 1

against Myers, Gentry, Babich, Wise, Luking, Hughes, Brookhart, Brown, Walters, Cunningham,

and John Does #1 and #2. However, John Does #3-12 will be dismissed. A plaintiff may use the

“John/Jane Doe” designation to refer to specific individuals whose names are unknown, but a

vague assertion that an undefined group of officials violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights

runs afoul of the pleading standards in Iqbal and Twombly. See Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 580

(7th Cir. 2009). Here, without identifying any specific incidents, Plaintiff claims these unknown

persons denied medical care/accommodations September 28, 2022 through August 26, 2023 (Doc.

1, p. 20). This is insufficient to state a viable claim against individuals. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Count 2

Plaintiff's allegations state a cognizable ADA and/or RA claim. However, the individual

employees of IDOC cannot be sued under the ADA or the RA. Jaros v. Illinois Dep't of Corrs,

684 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2012). Instead, the proper defendant is the relevant state department

or agency. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(b); Jaros, 684 F.3d at 670, n. 2 (individual capacity claims

are not available; the proper defendant is the agency or its director in his/her official capacity). As

Plaintiff has correctly named IDOC as a defendant for this claim, Count 2 will proceed only against

the agency; the remaining defendants will be dismissed from this claim.

Count 3

Defendant Wexford Health Sources is a corporation that provided medical care at the

prison at the relevant times. But a corporation can be held liable for deliberate indifference only

if it had a policy or practice that caused the alleged violation of a constitutional right. See

Woodward v. Corr. Med. Serv. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir. 2004); Jackson v. Ill. Medi-

Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760, 766 n.6 (7th Cir. 2002) (private corporation is treated as though it were a

municipal entity in a § 1983 action). See also Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York,

436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).

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

accommodations and providing inadequate medical care to maximize its profits, as carried out by

Babich and other Wexford providers at Lawrence. These allegations state a viable claim in Count

3 against Wexford Health Sources. The separately named Defendant Wexford will be dismissed

without prejudice as duplicative.

Count 4

Plaintiff asserts he is a third-party beneficiary of the contract between IDOC and Wexford,

and Wexford’s alleged breach of that contract damaged him. However, a contractual claim does

not amount to a constitutional violation. See Taake v. Cnty. of Monroe, 530 F.3d 538, 542-43 (7th

Cir. 2008) (citing Garcia v. Kankakee County Hous. Auth., 279 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 2002)).

Therefore, Count 4 will be dismissed.

Injunctive Relief

Because the Complaint includes a request for injunctive relief, the Warden of Lawrence

Correctional Center (currently Jeremiah Brown), will remain as an official-capacity defendant

regarding the request for injunctive relief. See Gonzales v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir.

2011) (holding warden is proper defendant for injunctive relief claim as he would be responsible

for ensuring that any injunctive relief would be carried out).

Unknown/John/Jane Doe Defendants

Plaintiff is responsible for securing information aimed at identifying the Unknown/John

Doe Defendants #1 and #2, in accordance with the John/Jane Doe Identification Order that will be

entered separately. Once the names of the unknown defendants are obtained, Plaintiff must file a

motion to substitute the newly identified defendants in place of the generic designations in the case

caption and throughout the Complaint. The Warden of Lawrence Correctional Center, in his

official capacity only, is designated to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for information regarding the

identity of the John Doe Defendants.

Pending Motion

Plaintiff’s motion to deem the Complaint filed on June 5, 2025 (Doc. 9) is GRANTED

pursuant to the prison mailbox rule. (See Doc. 1, p. 30). See Edwards v. United States, 266 F.3d

756, 758 (7th Cir. 2001).

Disposition

The Complaint states colorable claims in Count 1 against Myers, Gentry, Babich, Wise,

Luking, Hughes, Brookhart, Brown, Walters, Cunningham, and John Does #1 and #2; in Count 2

against the IDOC; and in Count 3 against Wexford Health Sources. Count 4, Lawrence

Correctional Center, Wexford (duplicate), and John Does #3-12 are DISMISSED without

prejudice.

The Clerk shall prepare for Latoya Hughes, Andrew Walters, Dee Dee Brookhart, Jeremiah

Brown (individual and official capacity), Lori Cunningham, Percy Myers, Gentry, Glen Babich,

Carissa Luking, Wise, the Illinois Department of Corrections, and Wexford Health Sources: (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 his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. 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).

Finally, 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.

DATED: March 30, 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.