Rottau

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

GARRETT ROTTAU, MS16284, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-02124-MAB

)

PERCY MEYERS, )

CHRISTINE BROWN, and )

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Garrett Rottau, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of

Corrections (IDOC) and currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center

(Pinckneyville), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional deprivations

arising from his allegedly inadequate medical care at Pinckneyville. (Doc. 1). He seeks

monetary and injunctive relief.1 Id.

The Complaint is now before the Court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.2

Any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or

requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. Id.

1 The Court construes Plaintiff’s request for “injunctive relief” as a request for relief at the close of the case.

If he requires interim injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary

injunction, Plaintiff may file a separate “Motion for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction Under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 65” at any time during the pending action.

2 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Complaint in light of Plaintiff’s consent to the full jurisdiction of

a Magistrate Judge, and the limited consent by the Illinois Department of Corrections and Wexford to the

exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between this

Court and the Illinois Department of Corrections and Wexford.

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 5-12):

Plaintiff has been submitting written requests for treatment of back, stomach, and bowel

problems since 2020. Id. at 5. Pinckneyville’s medical and nursing staff provided him with

“minimal pain medications,” which frequently ran out, and prescription laxatives, which

were ineffective. Id. at 6. He continued to seek treatment. Id.

While performing heavy lifting as a cellhouse porter on June 30, 2023, Plaintiff says

he heard a loud popping sound in his back and suffered a collapsed disc. The following

morning, he lost control of his right leg, suffered excruciating leg pain, and noticed

numbness in his right foot and toes. Plaintiff informed an officer that he needed medical

care, and he was taken by wheelchair to the health care unit (HCU). Id.

Plaintiff was placed in an isolation cell with a sleeping mat on July 1, 2023. Early

that day, a nurse administered an injection that did not help his pain. Id. at 7. Around

7:30 p.m., another nurse informed Plaintiff that he could only have naproxen, and she

provided it at 8:30 p.m. Then, two officers moved Plaintiff to A Ward, where he was given

a blanket and two sleeping mats around 10:30 p.m. Id.

At 9:00 a.m. on July 2, 2023, a nurse instructed Plaintiff to sign release paperwork.

When Plaintiff said he was still unable to walk, she injected him with medication. Plaintiff

was also allowed to call his family. An inmate porter then pushed him in a wheelchair

back to his cellhouse and let him hobble into his cell unassisted. Id. at 7-8.

For several months, Plaintiff remained in the same condition. Id. at 8. He suffered

from pain, stiffness, and immobility. At some point, Plaintiff saw Dr. Meyers in the

asthma clinic. Plaintiff confronted the doctor about his inadequate medical care. He asked

why the doctor refused to evaluate or treat him. Id. Dr. Meyers attempted to send Plaintiff

back to his cellhouse without acknowledging his concerns. When Plaintiff warned that

he would report his denial of care to a wing officer, Dr. Meyers gave him a prescription

for naproxen (500 mg). Id.

Plaintiff then suffered an injury to his right shin and foot that resulted from

constant hobbling after his back injury. Id. at 8-9. The hobbling forced his right foot into

a permanent outward-facing position. In late 2023 or early 2024, Plaintiff underwent a

right foot MRI, which revealed a stress fracture in his shin and foot. Id. at 9. Plaintiff was

sent to a pain management clinic in October 2024. Although a specialist recommended

injections with narcotic pain medication, he never received any. Id. Plaintiff suffered

permanent nerve damage, pain, numbness, deformities, and loss of mobility in his right

foot. Id. at 12.

In January or February 2025, Plaintiff met with an outside foot specialist, who

reviewed his medical charts and scans. Id. at 9. The specialist recommended an updated

MRI of his spine and further evaluation with an orthopedic specialist to determine

whether there was a connection between his back, stomach, and bowel issues. Plaintiff

was never sent for additional testing or treatment. He was instead placed on three

stomach medications and ibuprofen, which caused additional stomach issues, internal

bleeding, and bloody stools. Id. at 11-12.

HCU Administrator Christine Brown failed to schedule an appointment or

arrange a medical writ for further scans, tests, and/or treatment of Plaintiff. Id. at 9-10.

His family’s requests for medical records and other “institutional correspondence”

should have put Brown on notice of Plaintiff’s medical needs. Even so, Brown never

released his medical records or arranged treatment. Id. at 10-11.

At all times, Dr. Meyers served as the primary physician at Pinckneyville and,

according to Plaintiff, delayed or denied necessary testing and treatment for his back,

stomach, bowel, and foot problems. The doctor chose to treat him with only pain

relievers, and this medication complicated his condition by causing internal bleeding and

bloody stools. Id.

When making medical decisions, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Meyers acted pursuant

to policies and procedures of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. According to Plaintiff,

Wexford had a policy of delaying or denying treatment for non-life-threatening

conditions to reduce the cost of inmate medical care. Dr. Meyers acted pursuant to this

policy when choosing to treat Plaintiff’s symptoms with pain medication instead of

ordering diagnostic testing and treatment of his underlying medical condition(s). Id.

PRELIMINARY DISMISSALS

Plaintiff mentions the following individuals in the statement of his claim but does

not identify them as defendants in the Complaint: unidentified medical staff, nursing

staff, and officers. (Doc. 1). The Court will not treat these individuals as defendants, and

all claims against them are considered dismissed without prejudice. FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a)

(caption of complaint “must name all the parties”).

DISCUSSION

Based on the allegations set forth above, the Court designates the following claims

in this pro se Complaint:

Count 1: HCU Administrator Brown exhibited deliberate indifference to

Plaintiff’s back, stomach, bowel, and foot injuries at Pinckneyville,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 2: Dr. Meyers exhibited deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s back,

stomach, bowel, and foot injuries at Pinckneyville, in violation of the

Eighth Amendment.

Count 3: Wexford Health Sources, Inc. had a policy of delaying or denying

non-life-threatening medical care for inmates to save on costs, and

this policy caused the delay or denial of necessary medical care for

Plaintiff’s back, stomach, bowel, and foot injuries at Pinckneyville,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

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

considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.3

The Eighth Amendment guards against cruel and unusual punishment of

prisoners. U.S. CONST. amend VIII. A plaintiff bringing an Eighth Amendment claim

based on the denial of adequate medical care must make two showings. First, the plaintiff

must set forth allegations describing an objectively serious medical condition. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Second, he

must describe deliberate indifference to that condition by each defendant. Id.

3 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 to relief that is plausible on its face”).

1. Serious Medical Condition

An objectively serious medical condition is one that has been diagnosed by a

physician as requiring treatment or one where the need for treatment would be obvious

to a lay person. Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 412 (7th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff complains of

back, stomach, bowel, and foot conditions, and he alleges that medical providers,

including physicians, recommended further evaluation and treatment of each condition.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has also recognized that back pain, stomach

bleeding, bowel issues, and bone fractures are each objectively serious. See, e.g., Diaz v.

Godinez, 693 Fed. App’x 440 (7th Cir. 2017) (chronic back pain); Lewis v. McLean, 864 F.3d

556 (7th Cir. 2017) (back pain and muscle spasms); Reck v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 27

F.4th 473 (7th Cir. 2022) (Crohn’s Disease); Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 1999)

(internal bleeding and pain caused by doctor-prescribed medication); Zaya v. Sood, 836

F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2016) (broken hand, dislocated finger, tissue damage, with open

wound); Duncan v. Duckworth, 644 F.2 653 (7th Cir. 1981) (broken wrist). Plaintiff’s

medical conditions are each sufficiently serious to support this claim at screening.

2. Deliberate Indifference

Deliberate indifference occurs when a defendant knows of an excessive risk of

harm to an inmate’s health and either acts, or fails to act, in disregard of that risk. Roe v.

Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857 (7th Cir. 2011). This standard is “more than negligence and

approaches intentional wrongdoing.” Collignon v. Milwaukee Cnty., 163 F.3d 982, 988 (7th

Cir. 1998). Even so, a plaintiff “need not prove that the prison official intended, hoped

for, or desired the harm that transpired.” Walker v. Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030, 1037 (7th Cir.

2002). Plaintiff is also not required to show that he was literally ignored. Greeno v. Daley,

414 F. 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005).

According to the allegations, HCU Administrator Brown failed to schedule

outside appointments or medical writ(s). However, Plaintiff does not allege that anyone

informed Brown that he required additional treatment or requested Brown’s assistance

in securing it. Plaintiff vaguely alleges that “institutional correspondence” and his

family’s requests for medical records should have put Brown on notice of his need for

additional treatment. This vague assertion of notice and knowledge falls short of

establishing deliberate indifference, even at this early stage. Count 1 shall be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to state a claim against Brown.

According to the Complaint, Dr. Meyers disregarded Plaintiff’s need for

evaluation, testing, and treatment of each underlying condition and instead provided

him with over-the-counter pain relievers. However, Plaintiff contends the naproxen,

ibuprofen, and other pain relievers did not help his back, foot, or bowel problems. They

only complicated his condition by causing stomach issues, internal bleeding, and bloody

stools. A medical professional’s decision to use an “‘easier and less efficacious treatment’

without exercising professional judgment” may rise to the level of deliberate indifference.

McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2010). Persistence in a course of treatment

“known to be ineffective” violates the Eighth Amendment. Greeno, 414 F. at 655. And, a

delay in effective medical treatment may also support a claim, particularly where it

results in prolonged and unnecessary pain. Grievance v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 779 (7th

Cir. 2008) (reversing summary judgment where inmate did not receive treatment for

painful broken nose for two days). At this stage of the case, Plaintiff has stated a claim

against Dr. Meyers in Count 2.

The Complaint also articulates a claim of deliberate indifference against Wexford

Health Sources, Inc. A private medical corporation can be held liable for deliberate

indifference if an unconstitutional policy, custom, or widespread practice of the

corporation caused the constitutional deprivation at issue. 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)). The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply under § 1983, so Wexford

cannot be held liable for the misconduct of its employees absent this showing of a policy,

custom, or widespread practice. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the corporation had a policy of

denying or delaying non-life-threatening medical care to inmates to save on the cost of

inmate medical care, and Dr. Meyers relied on this policy when authorizing treatment

with excessive over-the-counter pain medication while denying testing and treatment of

Plaintiff’s underlying back, stomach, bowel, and foot conditions. At this stage of the case,

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim against Wexford and Count 3 shall

proceed against Wexford.

DISPOSITION

IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) survives screening under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, and the following claims will proceed: COUNT 2 against PERCY MEYERS and

COUNT 3 against WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.

IT IS ORDERED that COUNT 1 against CHRISTINE BROWN is DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

IT IS ORDERED that the WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL

CENTER (official capacity only) is ADDED as a defendant based on Plaintiff’s request

for injunctive relief.

With regard to COUNTS 2 and 3, the Clerk shall prepare for PERCY MEYERS,

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC. and WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE

CORRECTIONAL CENTER (official capacity only): (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 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 that 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 Local Rule 8.2, Defendants need only respond to the issues stated in this

Merit Review Order.

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 Christine Brown □□ a

defendant in CM/ECF; ADD the WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL

CENTER (official capacity only) as a defendant in CM/ECF; and ENTER the standard

qualified protective order_pursuant_to_ the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED. mM Q B

DATED: April 29, 2026 wh ly

MARK A. BEATTY

United States Magistrate Judge

10

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 Answers to your 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 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 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.