# Gosier

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 5, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11331216

## Case

- **Full name:** Harry Gosier v. Latoya Hughes, Rob Jeffreys, Dr. Meyers, John M. Barwick, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Warden Karalis, John Doe 1 (IA Officer), John Doe 2 (IA Officer), John/Jane Doe 1 (RN), John Doe 3 (C/O), John Doe 4 (C/O)
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** May 5, 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/11331216

## Opinion text

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

HARRY GOSIER, N84288, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
LATOYA HUGHES, )
ROB JEFFREYS, )
DR. MEYERS, ) Case No. 26-cv-133-DWD
JOHN M. BARWICK, )
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )
WARDEN KARALIS, )
JOHN DOE 1 (IA OFFICER), )
JOHN DOE 2 (IA OFFICER), )
JOHN/JANE DOE 1 (RN), )
JOHN DOE 3 (C/O), )
JOHN DOE 4 (C/O), )
)
Defendants.1 )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Harry Gosier, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
currently detained at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (Pinckneyville), brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional
rights. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that the defendants have violated his rights by failing to
provide treatment for multiple conditions. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is now before
the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A,

1 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CORRECT John/Jane Doe 1 “RN” to read “Jane Doe RN” consistent
with Plaintiff’s list of parties (Doc. 1 at 4), and to ADD John/Jane Doe “N/P” as a new party, because this
party was properly listed in Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1 at 4).
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 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). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are
to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th
Cir. 2009).
The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that in July of 2022, his health declined, with frequent spells of
dizziness, fatigue, headaches, weakness, and intermittent pain. (Doc. 1 at 7). Plaintiff
sought assistance from John Does 3 and 4 (five-day gallery officers that worked his
gallery), but they ignored his requests and refused to summon help from healthcare.
Even when Plaintiff pushed his emergency button, John Does 3 and 4 did not respond.

(Id. at 7-8). Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a life-altering stroke in August of 2022, but
John Does 3 and 4 walked by his cell for several days and refused assistance. He alleges
he was left for dead, did not eat or drink for days, and called for help to no avail. (Id. at
8).
At some point he was taken to the healthcare unit where Defendants John/Jane

Doe NP and Jane Doe (RN) took his vitals but did nothing else. (Doc. 1 at 8). He alleges
that Defendant Dr. Meyers was notified that he had experienced a stroke, but Meyers did
nothing. Instead, Meyers directed that Plaintiff be returned to his cell. He alleges that
John Does 3 and 4 roughly placed him in a wheelchair and threw him into his cell
paralyzed. He claims that when he was tossed in his cell he felt severe pain in his spine
but was unable to move or adjust his position. He alleges he laid in distress for days

without eating or drinking, and no one checked on him. (Doc. 1 at 8-9).
On September 1, 2022, a non-party correctional officer observed Plaintiff in distress
and took him to the medical unit. Plaintiff alleges that he was received at the medical
unit soaked in urine and in extreme pain. He begged for care, but on September 5, 2022,
he was still in urine-drenched clothing. He alleges that on September 5, 2022, he asked
Defendant Jane Doe RN for a change of clothing, but she refused and also did not provide

an IV or food. (Doc. 1 at 9-10). On September 5, 2022, Plaintiff was transferred to an
outside hospital for management of an epidural abscess. (Id. at 10). He alleges that
hospital records document him as “poorly responsive” and covered in urine. After
diagnostic imaging, Plaintiff was transferred to SLU where he received surgery for an
abscess. He alleges that his medical records demonstrate that prison nursing staff knew

his skin was decaying due to urine but did nothing. (Id. at 11).
Plaintiff alleges he remained hospitalized for two months, and he continued to
suffer from pain, dizziness, confusion, urinary incontinence, and paralysis. (Doc. 1 at 11-
12). Upon return to the prison, Plaintiff claims he remained in the prison infirmary for
seven months under the care of Dr. Meyers, John/Jane Doe NP, Jane Doe RN, and

Wexford’s staff. (Id. at 12). He alleges that for the entire seven months he complained
about the lack of pain medication, physical therapy, and the lack assistance with tasks
like eating and bathing to Meyers, John/Jane Doe NP, Jane Doe RN and several Wexford
employees. (Id.). He also alleges the cell was filthy and infested with mice, cockroaches,
and spiders. (Id.). He complained to Dr. Meyers, John/Jane Doe NP, Jane Doe RN, and
several Wexford employees about his weight loss due to his inability to eat, but they

dismissed and ignored his complaints. (Id. at 13).
Plaintiff alleges he was returned to general population in poor physical condition
with intermittent paralysis, headaches, spinal pain, weakness, confusion, and difficulty
breathing. (Doc. 1 at 13). He alleges that he complained to Defendants Dr. Meyers,
John/Jane Doe NP, Jane Doe RN, Wexford, John Does 1-2 (internal affairs), Warden
Karalis, Warden Barwick, and Hughes about these problems either in conversation, or

via detailed letters and emergency grievances, but his complaints were ignored. (Id. at
13-14).
Plaintiff alleges that in July of 2023 he was bitten by 20-30 brown recluse spiders
and had 20-30 holes ranging from pea to golf ball sized in his flesh. (Doc. 1 at 14). He
alleges he tried for several weeks to get healthcare, and wrote personal letters to

Defendants Dr. Meyers, John/Jane Doe NP, John Does 1-2 (internal affairs), and a warden
in July of 2023 to no avail. (Id.). Plaintiff eventually fainted from pain and was taken to
the healthcare unit on July 28, 2023. (Id. at 15). Plaintiff claims a golf ball sized lesion was
documented and he was given Bactrim to apply. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges he complained to
Dr. Meyers that the Bactrim caused pain and did not relieve his symptoms. He asked

Defendants John Doe 1-2, Dr. Meyers, and John/Jane Doe NP in August of 2023 to send
him to the hospital for the alleged bites.
He claims that at an August 5, 2023, medical appointment, Jane Doe RN
deliberately mis-recorded and misdiagnosed his condition as an allergic reaction. (Doc.
1 at 15-16). He alleges Dr. Meyers was informed of the incorrect information, and Jane
Doe RN ultimately prescribed Benadryl. (Id. at 16). On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff was

seen again in the healthcare unit, at which point staff allegedly believed he had suffered
from bed bug bites and quarantined his property. (Id.). He claims he continued to ask to
be seen by Dr. Meyers, and eventually on August 15, 2023, a nurse placed him on Dr.
Meyers’ list.
Plaintiff alleges that between August 15-19, 2023, he complained to John Does 1-2
that Dr. Meyers and nursing staff were not providing any care, and his condition was

worsening. (Doc. 1 at 17). On August 22, 2023, he claims internal affairs took pictures of
festering wounds on his legs but did not intervene to ensure he received care. He claims
John Does 1 and 2 saw wounds as large as golf balls but refused his requests for care.
(Id.). Plaintiff claims he wrote emergency grievances on August 17 and 28, 2023, and on
August 28, 2023, his grievances were declared an emergency. (Id. at 18). He additionally

claims that over the next year he wrote several grievances, letters, and certified mail to
Defendants Karalis, Barwick, and Hughes pertaining to his stroke and festering wounds.
He claims that even though a letter was stamped as received by Hughes’ office on January
22, 2024, he continues to suffer pain from his stroke and wounds. (Id.).
Plaintiff alleges that Wexford and its staff have a policy, custom, or practice of

misdiagnosing or underdiagnosing patients to save money. (Doc. 1 at 19). He further
alleges staff are trained to provide the “most basic minimal level of care despite how
emergent” the medical situation is. (Id.). He alleges that only taking his vitals after an
alleged stroke, and deeming 20-30 oozing wounds a rash, are examples of deliberate
misdiagnosis. He writes, “who prescribes Benadryl for saliently oozing, bloody, golf-ball
sized wounds all over? Wexford, that’s who.” (Id. at 19).

As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 1 at 20). In support of the
complaint, he submitted photographs of his legs from August of 2023. (Doc. 1 at 21-24).
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court will designate the following
claims:
Claim 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendants John Does 3-4, Dr. Meyers, John/Jane Doe NP,
and Jane Doe RN for their alleged deliberate indifference in
relation to Plaintiff’s condition from August of 2022-
September 5, 2022 when he was hospitalized;

Claim 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Dr. Meyers, John/Jane Doe NP, and Jane Doe (RN) for the
care in the prison infirmary for seven months following
Plaintiff’s hospitalization;

Claim 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendants John Does 1-2, Wardens Barwick and Karalis,
and Hughes for failing to investigate Plaintiff’s in-person
complaints or grievances and letters about his condition and
lack of care after release from the prison’s infirmary;

Claim 4: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendants Dr. Meyers, John/Jane Doe (NP), and Jane Doe
(RN) for their treatment of Plaintiff’s lesions in July and
August of 2023;

Claim 5: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendants John Doe 1-2 (internal affairs), Wardens
Barwick and Karalis, and Hughes for their handling of
verbal requests, correspondence and emergency grievances
about Plaintiff’s wounds;

Claim 6: Monell claim against Wexford Health Sources, Inc., for their
alleged policy, custom, or practice of training staff to
misdiagnose or “under” diagnose conditions to delay care
and save money.
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 Twombly. See Bell Atl. 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 Dismissal
Plaintiff named Rob Jeffreys, a former director of the IDOC, as a defendant in this

suit. Plaintiff never described Jeffreys by name in the factual allegations. Naming a
defendant without describing their personal role is insufficient to state a claim under §
1983. See, Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401 n.8 (7th Cir. 1994) (merely naming a defendant
without describing his or her personal role is insufficient to state a claim); Matz v. Klotka,
769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[I]ndividual liability under § 1983 requires personal

involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation”). Therefore, Jeffreys is dismissed
without prejudice.
Analysis
An Eighth Amendment claim arising from the denial of medical care consists of
an objective and a subjective component. Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 439–40 (7th Cir.

2010). A plaintiff must show that he suffered from a serious medical condition (i.e., an
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. 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 care.
Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2019).
Plaintiff’s allegations in Claims 1, 2, and 4, that all pertain to individuals who
personally saw and observed his condition, and allegedly failed or refused to provide
care, are sufficient to proceed beyond initial review. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that

the care he received was deficient because Wexford maintained a custom, policy, or
practice of training nurses to misdiagnose or under-diagnose conditions to delay care and
save money, thus resulting in the allegedly inadequate responses to his alleged stroke
and sores. Ultimately, this claim will require significant development of the record, but
at this early juncture, it is clearly pled and is adequately connected to Plaintiff’s

experience such that Claim 6 may proceed against Wexford.
By contrast, Claims 3 and 5 against John Does 1-2, Wardens Barwick and Karalis,
and Hughes are deficient in some respects. These Defendants are all non-medical prison
employees, with Defendants Barwick, Karalis, and Hughes holding high-level
supervisory roles. Though a claim against a high-level supervisor can in some

circumstances be premised on the assertion that they turned a blind-eye to highly
detailed correspondence, not all such claims succeed. See e.g., Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d
768, 781-82 (7th Cir. 2015) (highly detailed correspondence to a prison administrator that
they ignore may form the basis for deliberate indifference); but see, Hayes v. Snyder, 546
F.3d 516, 527-28 (7th Cir. 2008) (administrators who promptly responded to an inmate’s
correspondence about deficient care, investigated, and then relied on the judgment of

treating providers, were not deliberately indifferent). As to the issues with alleged post-
stroke care, it appears that Plaintiff did not begin to complain or grieve these issues until
after he was released from the prison infirmary, but he is not specific about when he
started to raise complaints, how often he raised them, how many times he sent
correspondence to each of these defendants, or what the correspondence said. The
allegations against John Does 1-2, Barwick, Karalis, and Hughes are all too vague in

relation to the care (or lack thereof) that Plaintiff alleges he received after his alleged
stroke. Claim 3 will be dismissed as inadequately pled.
In relation to the sores, Plaintiff alleges that John Does 1-2 photographed his
wounds and refused to intervene in the care or lack of care. Plaintiff attached
photographs of his wounds. At this early juncture, the allegation that John Does 1-2 saw

festering wounds and refused to even probe the matter is enough to proceed on Claim 5.
By contrast, Plaintiff may not proceed against the Wardens or Hughes because he does
not provide enough detail about their involvement, and the little he provides suggests
that emergency grievances about the issue were at least expedited. Without more
information on what was done with the grievances, or what other correspondence may

have been sent, Claim 5 cannot proceed against Hughes or Wardens Barwick and Karalis.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Clerk of Court shall CORRECT John/Jane
Doe 1 “RN” to read “Jane Doe RN” as indicated in Plaintiff’s complaint, and ADD

John/Jane Doe NP as a defendant consistent with footnote 1.
Claim 1 of the Complaint (Doc. 1) survives against Defendants John Does 3-4, Dr.
Meyers, Jane Doe (RN), and John/Jane (NP), Claims 2 and 4 proceed against Dr. Meyers,
John/Jane Doe (NP), and Jane Doe (RN), Claim 6 may proceed against Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., and Claim 5 may proceed against John Does 1-2. Claim 3 is dismissed

without prejudice as insufficient, and Claim 5 is dismissed without prejudice as
insufficiently pled against Defendants Hughes and Wardens Barwick and Karalis. The
Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE Defendants Hughes, Jeffreys, Barwick, and Karalis
because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against these parties.
The Clerk shall ADD the Warden of Pinckneyville in official capacity for any

potential future injunctive relief and to help identify John Does 1-4, John/Jane Doe (NP),
and Jane Doe (RN). Plaintiff shall have 21 days to file a notice with descriptive
information about John Does 1-4, John/Jane Doe (NP), and Jane Doe (RN). He shall
include physical appearance, dates when he interacted with these defendants,
nicknames, and any other information he possesses. Failure to file a notice may result
in the dismissal of the unnamed parties. Once Plaintiff has filed his Notice, the Court

shall set a deadline for the Warden to respond.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare for Defendants Dr. Meyers, Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., and the Warden of Pinckneyville (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 (Doc. 1), and this Memorandum and Order to Defendants’ 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 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 Local Rule 8.2, 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 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. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard HIPAA Order in this case
because it will involve the exchange of medical records.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 5, 2026

/s David W. Dugan
________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
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 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 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 a 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11331216. Public record. Not legal advice.