# Ball

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · June 2, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11345039

## Case

- **Full name:** Cherish Ball v. John Barwick, Jaime Ben Brook, Food Supervisor Andrew, Food Supervisor Kassing, Food Supervisor Underwood, Food Supervisor Burg, Counselor A. Haggard, C/O Bird, C/O Adcock, Nurse Diana, Nurse Gill, Nurse Brandy, Nurse Jane Doe 1, Nurse John Doe 1, Dr. Bob, Dr. Ajdesni, Dr. Gordon, and Christine Brown
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** June 2, 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/11345039

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHERISH BALL, #M18488, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 25-cv-00357-SMY
)
JOHN BARWICK, )
JAIME BEN BROOK, )
FOOD SUPERVISOR ANDREW, )
FOOD SUPERVISOR KASSING, )
FOOD SUPERVISOR UNDERWOOD, )
FOOD SUPERVISOR BURG, )
COUNSELOR A. HAGGARD, )
C/O BIRD, )
C/O ADCOCK, )
NURSE DIANA, )
NURSE GILL, )
NURSE BRANDY, )
NURSE JANE DOE 1, )
NURSE JOHN DOE 1, )
DR. BOB, )
DR. AJDESNI, )
DR. GORDON,and )
CHRISTINE BROWN, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, Chief District Judge:
Plaintiff Cherish Ball’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) is now before the Court for
review. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged denial of a
therapeutic diet at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. He seeks monetary relief.1 Because Plaintiff
was a prisoner on the date he filed this action, theFirst Amended Complaint is subject to screening
1 Plaintiff was released from custody after filing this action, so any request for injunctive relief stemming from his
conditions of confinement are considered MOOT. (IDocs. 27, 30-32).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires dismissal of portions that are legally frivolous or
malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money damages from an immune defendant. Id.
First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Amended Complaint (Doc. 18, pp. 1-22):
Plaintiffis allergic to legumes. When he consumes any kind of bean or legume, hesuffers from a

range of symptoms that include itchinessand swelling in his throat, tingling in his chest, abdominal
pain, rashes, cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, bloody stools, bloody urine, bloody spit up, breathing
difficulties, hives, dizziness, and loss of consciousness. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff disclosed his legume allergy to Nurse Jane Doe when he arrived at Pinckneyville
on November 4, 2024. He showed the nurse his original therapeutic diet order and medical permit
for no legumes/beans during his medical intake interview. Nurse Doe documented the allergy in
his medical file and indicated that he would be placed on a special diet “immediately” once the
documents were processed. Id. at 8-9.
The same day, Plaintiff received a lunch tray containing beans. Id. at 9. When Plaintiff

showed C/O Adcock his permit for a therapeutic diet containing no legumes, Adcock responded,
“[Y]our shit out of luck that all we got it’s either this or nothing.” Id. (errors in original). Plaintiff
was “left to starve.” Id. He repeatedly asked to meet with Dr. Bob or Dr. Ajdesni, but his requests
were ignored. He was not scheduled for an appointment with either prison physician. Dr. Gordon
finally met with him and issued a therapeutic order on March 6, 2025. Id.
In the meantime, Plaintiff submitted several emergency grievances to report the denial of
a therapeutic diet, resulting illness, and/or starvation. He sent emergency grievances to Warden
Barwick on November 13, 2024, December 18, 2024, and March 24, 2025. Id. at 10. All
emergency grievances were deemed non-emergencies and discarded. Id.
He also filed regular grievances. In response, Counselor A. Haggard told Plaintiff that the
IDOC does not recognize a bean allergy on December 11, 2024. Haggard refused to provide the
names of dietary and medical personnel to write about the issue on January 28, 2025. The
counselor stated, “[W]e protect our own[,] right or wrong.” Id. at 11.
Food Supervisors Brook, Underwood, Andrew, Kassing, and Burg disregarded theoriginal

and new special diet orders. Plaintiff wrote personal letters to Brook and Underwood asking them
to comply with the original therapeutic diet order in November 2024, December 2024, and January
2025, among other dates. Brook and Underwood explained “they” do not acknowledge the
medical allergy to legumes/beans and instructed Plaintiff to either “eat or don’t eat.” Id. at 10.
When Plaintiff asked Andrew to help, the supervisor said, “[L]isten coon, I does not care if you
die from your allergy your not getting a non-bean tray.” Id. (errors in original). Lieutenant Colbert
laughed when he heard this. Id. Plaintiff attempted to address the issue with Burg and Kassing,
but they instructed him to “eat around the beans.” Id. When Plaintiff explained that he became ill
and lost consciousness when trying this technique on March 11, 2025 and April 2, 2025, they told

him to “fuck off.” Id. When C/O Bird learned that Plaintiff received beans on a meal tray on
February 27, 2025, the officer said, “Fuck him. If he die he did something good by his family.”
Id. at 12.
At some point, Plaintiff notified Nurse Diana that cross-contamination caused him to
become ill. Nurse Diana agreed to include him on the list to see a doctor. Nurse Gill, Nurse
Brandy, and Nurse John Doe did the same,after Plaintiff described his symptoms and health issues
during separate sick calls. Plaintiff was not seen by a physician, even after receiving these
assurances from the nurses. Id. at 11.
Based on the allegations, the Court designates the following claim in the pro se First
Amended Complaint:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for exhibiting deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s legume allergy by denying him a therapeutic diet
and continuing to serve him food trays containing legumes even after he
repeatedly suffered from allergic reactions in 2024-25.
Any other claim mentioned in the First Amended Complaint but not addressed herein is considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007) (action fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face”).
Discussion
Preliminary Dismissals
Plaintiff mentions Lieutenant Colbert in the statement of his claim but does not identify
this individual as a party in the case caption or list of defendants. Therefore, the Court will not
treat this person as a defendant. See FED.R. CIV. P.10(a) (title of the complaint “must name all
the parties”). All claims against Lieutenant Colbert are considered dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff identifies Christine Brown as a defendant in the First Amended Complaint but
makes no allegations against her. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998)(merely
invoking the name of a potential defendant is not enough to state a claim). This defendant cannot
be said to have notice of which claims, if any, are directed against her. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
Accordingly, Christine Brown will be dismissed from this action without prejudice.

Count 1
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment when they exhibit deliberate indifference to prison conditions that deny inmates “the
minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” including adequate food, shelter, clothing, and
medical care. Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Prisoners
are entitled to food that meets their nutritional needs, and the withholding of nutritionally adequate
food can amount to an objectively serious deprivation. See Williams v. Shah, 927 F.3d 476, 479
(7th Cir. 2019) (collecting cases); Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006). When
determining whether the denial of food rises to this level, “a court must assess the amount and

duration” of the deprivation. Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999).
The court must also consider whether each prison official actedwith deliberate indifference
to the inmate’s health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Board v. Farnham,
394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005). Deliberate indifference occurs when the official knew the
inmate faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to prevent it. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. When making this determination, the
court must consider whether each defendant received information from which an inference could
be drawn that a substantial risk existed and drew the inference. Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d at
773. It is not enough to show that the official acted negligently or should have known about the

risk. Id. (citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s alleged regular exposure to legumes in his diet at Pinckneyville constitutes an
objectively serious deprivation. Plaintiff alleges he was diagnosed by a doctor with a serious
allergy to all legumes. He also alleges that he carried a permit for a legume-free diet when he
transferred to Pinckneyville on November 4, 2024, and received a new order for a therapeutic diet
from a prison physician on March 6, 2025. However, for at least six months beginning November
2024, he was exposed to legumes in his diet before and after receiving the updated permit and was
forced to choose between eating food that caused illness or eating no food at all when served with
meal trays containing legumes.
Plaintiff also sufficiently alleges deliberate indifference to his food allergy by numerous
defendants. He claims that food supervisors Brook, Andrew, Kassing, Underwood, and Burg
refused to honor the original and new permit for a legume-free diet even after learning of the
serious symptoms he suffered from exposure to legumes and instead, encouraged him to consume
food that was contaminated with legumes. These defendants also allegedly offered him no

alternative source of nutrition. Based on these allegations Plaintiff states a colorable claim in
Count 1 against all five food supervisors.
Plaintiff alleges he filed several emergency grievances with Warden Barwick to request a
legume-free diet in November 2024, December 2024, and March 2025, among other dates. In
each one, Plaintiff described his food allergy, his illness from exposure to legumes, and his only
other option, i.e., starvation. Warden Barwick denied each emergency grievance as a non-
emergency and then discarded it. When Plaintiff filed regular grievances with Counselor Haggard,
the counselor refused to recognize the documented food allergy or provide Plaintiff with the names
of anyone he could contact about the issue. As a result, Plaintiff continued to suffer from exposure

to legumes. Because Plaintiff alleges both grievance officials were personally involved in his
ongoing exposure to and resulting illness from legumes, Count 1 will proceed against them.
However, this claim will be dismissed against all other defendants, including the
correctional officers (C/O Adcock and C/O Bird), nurses (Nurse Jane Doe, Nurse John Doe, Nurse
Diana, Nurse Gill, and Nurse Brandy), and doctors (Dr. Bob, Dr. Adjesni, and Dr. Gordon).
Plaintiff describes a single brief encounter with C/O Adcock and C/O Bird, who each allegedly
responded to his request for a legume-free meal tray by verbally harassing him. However, Plaintiff
does not allege or plead facts suggesting that either officer possessed authority to authorize,
acquire, or serve him a modified meal tray. “Simple verbal harassment,” standing alone, does not
amount to deliberate indifference. DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000); but see
Lisle v. Wellborn, 933 F.3d 705, 717 (7th Cir. 2019). Because the allegations fail to state a claim
for deliberate indifference, Count 1 will be dismissed against both officers.
The allegations against the nurses also fall short of describing deliberate indifference.
Plaintiff alleges only that each nurse agreed to place him on a list to see a prison physician about

his legume allergy and related symptoms. He does not describewhat symptoms he reported, what
requests he made for treatment, whether any symptoms required urgent care, when each sick call
occurred, or whether each nurse actually, intentionally, or only accidentally excluded him from
the physician’s list. Therefore, Count 1 will be dismissed without prejudice against all nurse
defendants.
As for the doctors, Plaintiff alleges that he “repeatedly” asked to see Dr. Bob and
Dr. Adjesni. He does not identify who he asked or that Dr. Bob or Dr. Adjesni knew he asked to
see them. Plaintiff does not allege that he asked to see Dr. Gordon at all; only that this physician
issued a new therapeutic diet order upon request at the first appointment with Plaintiff. Because

the allegations fall short of stating a colorable claim for deliberate indifference on the part of these
physicians, Count 1 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim against them.
Disposition
The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
COUNT 1 will proceedagainst Defendants JOHN BARWICK, COUNSELOR A. HAGGARD,
JAIME BEN BROOK, FOOD SUPERVISOR ANDREW, FOOD SUPERVISOR KASSING,
FOOD SUPERVISOR UNDERWOOD, and FOOD SUPERVISOR BURG.
However, COUNT 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim against
Defendants CHRISTINE BROWN, C/O ADCOCK, C/O BIRD, NURSE JANE DOE 1,
NURSE JOHN DOE 1, NURSE DIANA, NURSE GILL, NURSE BRANDY, DR. BOB,
DR. ADJESNI, and DR. GORDON.
The Clerk shall prepare for Defendants JOHN BARWICK, COUNSELOR A.
HAGGARD, JAIME BEN BROOK, FOOD SUPERVISOR ANDREW, FOOD
SUPERVISOR KASSING, FOOD SUPERVISOR UNDERWOOD, and FOOD

SUPERVISOR BURG: (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 First Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), 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 Defendant.
The Court will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, as 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 that 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 appropriate responsive pleading to the First
Amended Complaint (Doc. 18)and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to SDIL-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 he was granted in forma pauperis status. 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).
The_Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to TERMINATE CHRISTINE BROWN,
C/O ADCOCK, C/O BIRD, NURSE JANE DOE 1, NURSE JOHN DOE 1, NURSE DIANA,
NURSE GILL, NURSE BRANDY, DR. BOB, DR. ADJESNI, and DR. GORDON as
defendants in CM/ECF and ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
IT ISSO ORDERED.
DATED: 6/2/2026 Ke

STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
Notice to Plaintiff
Once identified, the Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendants of your
lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your First Amended Complaint. After service has been
achieved, Defendants will enter their appearances and file Answers to your First Amended
Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date they are served with this lawsuit to
receive the Answers, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all
Defendants have file 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’ attorneys have filed
appearances will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the
Court at this time, unless specifically directed to do so.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11345039. Public record. Not legal advice.