Flynn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHARLES FLYNN, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 25-3400

)

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., et al., )

Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center

(“Lawrence”), filed a Third Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his

constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Graham Correctional Center (“Graham”) and

Lawrence. (Doc. 19). The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, and through

such process, identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief.” Id. In reviewing the Third Amended Complaint, the Court accepts the

factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff’s favor. See Turley v. Rednour,

729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory statements and labels are insufficient, however.

Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander

v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff files suit against Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”),

Centurion Health, Inc. (“Centurion”), John/Jane Does (unknown medical records personnel),

Olmer (correctional officer at Graham), Dr. Noorani (physician at Graham), Anne Kozik

(registered nurse at Graham), Stephanie Howard (Healthcare Unit Administrator (“HCUA”) at

Graham), John/Jane Doe (Assistant Warden of Programs at Graham), Brittany Jackson (Grievance

Office Coordinator at Lawrence), Kimberly Ulrich (Grievance Counselor at Lawrence), M. Burton

(Assistant Warden of Programs at Lawrence), Lorie Cunningham (Americans With Disabilities

Act (“ADA”) Coordinator at Lawrence), R. Steber (current ADA Coordinator at Lawrence),

Jeremiah Brown (Warden at Lawrence), Lars Gentry (optometrist at Lawrence), Ryan Nothangle

(Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) member), Rebecca Riggs (ARB member), ARB

Chairperson KAAP (full name unknown – KAAP is chair code receipt identifier), Latoya Hughes

(Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) Director), and John/Jane Doe (unknown Wexford

employee who denied Plaintiff earplugs).

Plaintiff alleges he began experiencing light and sound sensitivity prior to his incarceration.

On May 21, 2022, Plaintiff saw Nurse Trusewych at Western Illinois Correctional Center to

remove a cotton ball stuck in his left ear canal. Plaintiff alleges he put cotton balls and toilet paper

in his ears to drown out noise, which caused stress and anxiety.

When Plaintiff was incarcerated at Graham, he obtained ear plugs from an employee who

worked in the plumbing department. On February 23, 2025, Defendant Correctional Officer Olmer

stopped Plaintiff as he was exiting the Dietary at Graham, instructed Plaintiff to remove his ear

plugs, and threatened to issue a disciplinary ticket if Plaintiff did not comply. Plaintiff filed a

grievance against Defendant Olmer. Plaintiff alleges Defendants ARB member Nothangle and

IDOC Director Hughes failed to review the grievance in a timely manner.

On April 24, 2025, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Dr. Noorani in the Healthcare Unit

(“HCU”). Plaintiff requested a permit for earplugs and all available auxiliary aids for sensory

issues. Defendant Dr. Noorani indicated Plaintiff would be call passed to sign for an auxiliary aid.

Plaintiff does not specify what condition Dr. Noorani diagnosed him with.

On April 25, 2025, Plaintiff saw Defendant Nurse Kozik during sick call. Plaintiff

requested earplugs and was informed earplugs were not allowed. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Dr.

Noorani issued the order granting the accommodation, but an unknown Wexford employee or

Defendant HCUA Howard erroneously refused to follow Dr. Noorani’s order.

On an unknown date, Plaintiff filed a grievance. Plaintiff alleges Defendants ARB

members Ulrich and Riggs and Chairperson KAAP failed to review his grievance in a timely

manner and denied the grievance.

On April 26, 2025, Plaintiff alleges he sent a request to Defendant Assistant Warden of

Programs (the ADA Coordinator at Graham) for an accommodation for sensory issues with light

and sound, but the Assistant Warden allegedly ignored his request. Plaintiff alleges Defendants

Dr. Noorani and Kozik should have consulted with the ADA Coordinator to develop a program to

provide safe, reliable policies or practices to comply with the ADA.

On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff was transferred to Lawrence. On May 31, 2025, Plaintiff sent

an inmate request to Defendant Assistant Warden of Programs Burton to request an ADA

accommodation, but Defendant Burton allegedly ignored the request. Plaintiff later discovered that

Defendant Cunningham was the ADA Coordinator at Lawrence. Plaintiff claims Defendant Burton

was negligent by not responding to his request and should have forwarded it to the ADA

Coordinator to ensure he received an ADA accommodation.

On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Gentry, an optometrist at Lawrence, for

an eye examination. Defendant Gentry determined Plaintiff needed glasses and ordered lenses and

frames. Plaintiff informed Defendant Gentry that he experienced stress headaches due to light

sensitivity and sensory issues caused by prolonged periods of exposure to bright light. Plaintiff

alleges Defendant Gentry documented the light sensitivity but failed to provide a diagnosis or

medical treatment, such as prescribing tinted lenses. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Gentry was

negligent toward his request for an accommodation for light sensitivity and violated his rights

under the ADA.

On September 29, 2025, Plaintiff complained to a nurse about light sensitivity during sick

call. Plaintiff submitted a grievance, but Defendant ARB member Ulrich allegedly responded that

there was nothing in Plaintiff’s medical file about the sensory issue.

ANALYSIS

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), “no qualified individual with a

disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the

benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination

by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Plaintiff’s ADA claim is reviewed under Title II of the

ADA, which applies to state prisoners. See Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524

U.S. 206 (1998). “To establish a violation, a plaintiff must show “he is a qualified individual with

a disability, that he was denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity

or otherwise subjected to discrimination by such an entity, and that the denial or discrimination

was by reason of his disability.’” Hildreth v. Butler, 960 F.3d 420, 430 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting

Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2015)). A disability is defined as “a physical or

mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual.” §

12102(1)(A).

Plaintiff alleges he experiences sensory issues due to loud noises and bright lights. Plaintiff

alleges Defendant Correctional Officer Olmer confiscated his earplugs, which Plaintiff obtained

from an employee who worked in the plumbing department at Graham. Plaintiff alleges Defendant

Dr. Noorani issued a permit for earplugs on April 24, 2025, but Plaintiff never received the

earplugs. Plaintiff claims Nurse Kozik, an unknown Wexford employee, or Defendant HCUA

Administrator Howard must have failed to follow Defendant Dr. Noorani’s order.

Defendant Gentry, the optometrist at Lawrence, allegedly documented Plaintiff’s light

sensitivity during an eye examination on June 6, 2025, but did not prescribe tinted lenses. Plaintiff

does not identify what medical conditions he was diagnosed with regarding his sensitivity to light

and sound. Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that he is a qualified individual with a disability

under the ADA. In addition, Plaintiff does not allege how his alleged disabilities prevent him from

participating in services, programs, or activities within the IDOC.

Plaintiff’s remaining allegations related to the alleged denial of his medical records and his

grievances are insufficient to state a constitutional claim. While Plaintiff is critical of how

Defendants Hughes, Chairperson KAAP, Ulrich, Nothangle, and Riggs handled his various

grievances, this is not enough to plead personal liability under § 1983. See Owens v. Hinsley, 635

F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011). “[T]he Constitution does not obligate prisons to provide a grievance

process, nor does the existence of a grievance process itself create a protected interest.” Montanez

v. Feinerman, 439 F. App'x 545, 547-48 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Owens, 635 F.3d at 953-54);

Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 772-73 (7th Cir. 2008). “[T]he mishandling of an inmate

grievance alone cannot be a basis for liability under § 1983.” Montanez, 439 F. App'x at 547 (citing

Owens, 635 F.3d at 953-54); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007); see Greeno

v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 656-57 (7th Cir. 2005).

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is largely identical to his Second Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff did not include any additional allegations in his Third Amended Complaint to

establish a claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and §

1915A. The Court finds that any further amendment would be futile because the facts do not

support a constitutional violation. Additionally, Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to plead a

cognizable claim and has failed to do so.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for

failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. §

1915A. Any further amendment would be futile. The Clerk is directed to close this case and

enter judgment.

2) This dismissal may count as one of Plaintiff's three allotted strikes pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of Court is directed to record Plaintiff's strike in the three-

strike log.

3) Plaintiff must still pay the $350.00 filing fee even though his case has been

dismissed. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments

to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order.

4) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with

this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave

to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist

the Court in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P.

24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v. Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that an

appellant should be allowed to submit a statement of the grounds for appealing so that the

district judge "can make a reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith"); Walker v.

O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000) (providing that a good-faith appeal is an appeal

that "a reasonable person could suppose . . . has some merit" from a legal perspective). If

Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless

of the outcome of the appeal.

ENTERED: 6/22/2026

s/ Michael M. Mihm

Michael M. Mihm

United States District Judge