The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SCOTT PETERS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 24-cv-2512-NJR
DAVID MCCLANAHAN, BRENDAN
GARCIA, MICHAEL ROBERTS,
QUININ BAKER, GLENN STOKES,
MATTHEW FRED, GARRETT
LEPOSKY, ADAM BARTTELBORT, and
LATOYA HUGHES,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Scott Peters, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is
currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Menard Correctional
Center.
This matter is currently before the Court on a Motion to Amend the Complaint
filed by Peters (Doc. 116). Peters also filed two “Statement of Facts” (Docs. 131, 132) which
appear to include exhibits regarding prison standards and administrative directives. The
Court does not accept piecemeal amendments to the pleading, and these “Statements”
are merely discovery that is not to be filed on the docket. Thus, the Court STRIKES the
Statement of Facts (Docs. 131, 132).
BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED PLEADING
After review of his initial Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Peters was
originally allowed to proceed on the following counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer
McClanahan, Officer Garcia, and Officer Roberts for
removing Peters from his cell and pushing him out of his
wheelchair causing injuries.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Officer McClanahan, Officer Garcia, and Officer Roberts for
failing to obtain medical care for Peters’s injuries.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Matthew Fred, Sergeant Garrett Leposky, and Adam
Barttelbort for failing to obtain medical care for Peters’s
injuries and placing him in a non-ADA compliant cell.
Count 4: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Officer Baker and Officer Stokes for failing to take Peters for
an x-ray or provide him with care for his injuries.
Count 5: ADA claim for Peters being placed in a non-ADA compliant
cell in North 2 segregation.
(Doc. 12, pp. 7-9).
The proposed Amended Complaint seeks to reallege claims and defendants that
were previously dismissed, as well as add claims and defendants. Peters alleges that in
the days prior to the use of force alleged in Count 1, Peters had a prescription for
Neurontin, that was substituted with gabapentin. He had received that prescription since
June 2022 (Doc. 116-1, p. 10). On December 2, 2022, Jane Doe #1 knew Peters had an active
prescription for Neurontin but refused to give him his medication (Id.). Jane Doe #1
refused to provide Peters with his medication on multiple occasions (Id.). On December
3, Jane Doe #2 also refused to give Peters his medication, despite informing her that he
was not receiving his medication (Id. at pp. 11-12). On December 5, 2022, Jane Doe #3 also
refused to provide Peters with his medications (Id. at p. 12). On December 6, 2022,
M. Ogalsby refused Peters his medication despite being aware that he was without his
medication (Id.). On December 6, 2022, Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #5 also refused Peters
his medications (Id. at pp. 13-14). He alleges that all of the medical officials could see he
was suffering without his medication due to his previous injuries and physical condition
(Id. at pp. 11-14).
On December 4, 2022, Keisha Hamby refused Peters his pain medication despite
knowing he had an active prescription (Doc. 116-1, p. 14). Peters alleges that he
demanded his medications from Hamby, and in response he was issued a disciplinary
ticket (Id.). Peters alleges the ticket was in retaliation for his demands. His demands also
led to the use of excessive force (Id.). On December 4, 2022, Officers McClanahan, Garcia,
and Roberts removed him from his cell. Peters alleges the officers were led by
McClanahan and Hamby (Doc. 116-1, p. 15). Roberts took control of Peters’s wheelchair
and ran him into a curb at a high rate of speed (Id. at pp. 15-16). Peters alleges that Roberts
purposefully crashed the wheelchair, causing him to be ejected and hitting his head on
the pavement (Id.). Peters also alleges that he injured his spine, knees, elbow, and
shoulder (Id. at p. 16). McClanahan and Garcia dragged Peters back into his wheelchair
(Id.). He asked for medical attention, but they refused and told him to shut up (Id.). Peters
alleges that Hamby, McClanahan, Roberts, and Garcia knew that he was disabled and
suffered from chronic injuries, but they still sought to injure him.
After the use of force incident, Peters requested medical attention from Hamby
but she refused (Id. at p. 15). He alleges that Hamby approached him as a crisis team
member making a suicide evaluation (Id.). She could see he was suffering from his
injuries, but she refused his request for medical treatment (Id.). While Hamby was still
present with Peters in the restrictive housing unit, Peters requested a crisis team from
Correctional Officer McClanahan (Id.). That request was also refused (Id.).
Peters was placed in a non-ADA compliant cell. He informed K. Hamby that he
was previously housed in an ADA cell and his new cell was not compliant (Id.). He also
spoke to M. Fred, G. Leposky, and A. Barttelbort and requested that they review his
permits (Id.). They refused to provide him with a compliant cell and accommodations
(Id.).1 Peters also alleges that Garcia, Roberts, and McClanahan were aware of his ADA
needs but placed him in the non-compliant cell (Id. at p. 18). The cell lacked useable grab
bars or a low toilet (Id.). There were also issues with the sink and bed placement (Id.).
Peters alleges that Hamby acted pursuant to Wexford policy of placing ADA individuals
in non-compliant cells and the company devised the policy to remove Peters from his cell
(Id.).
Peters alleges that ADA Coordinators J. Kuhnert and Frank Lawrence would have
known about the danger to Peters if placed in a non-compliant cell, but failed to mitigate
1 Peters alleges that the officers used force and threats of force to place him in the cell but fails to
further describe the use of force and threats used against him. Any claim against these officers
for excessive force is DISMISSED without prejudice.
the risks (Doc. 116-1, p. 18). He alleges the two coordinators failed to take action to
provide him with necessary accommodations (Id.).
On December 7, 2022, Peters alleges Warden Wills walked through the segregation
unit and spoke to him (Doc. 116-1, p. 19). Peters alleges any reasonable person could have
seen that Peters was in distress and knew of the dangers of an inmate being placed in a
non-compliant cell, but Wills failed to mitigate the risk (Id.). He alleges that Wills was
aware of Peters circumstances after speaking with him (Id.).
Peters further alleges that C/O Stokes and Baker retrieved him from his cell to
attend an adjustment committee hearing and an x-ray for his injuries (Doc. 116-1, p. 19).
He alleges that he was lying on the floor and could not get up. The officers could see that
he was injured and that he lacked necessary accommodations, but they failed to mitigate
his risks in the non-compliant cell (Id.). Peters also informed counselor Stewart several
times after he was admitted to segregation about the non-compliant cell and his injuries,
but Stewart also failed to act (Id. at pp. 19-20). Peters wrote grievances, which he alleges
made C. Modglin aware of needs, but Modglin failed to take action (Id. at p. 20).
On November 30, 2022, Peters met with Dr. G. Babbich for a serious medical
condition. On that date, Babbich took no action to provide Peters with proper medical
services or accommodations (Doc. 116-1, p. 21). Peters alleges that Babbich failed to
mitigate the risks of being placed in a non-compliant cell (Id.). Peters further alleges that
Governor J.B. Pritzker was aware of systemic issues at the prison and issues with
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. He alleges the governor was aware of issues with medical
care, but the governor took no action to provider Peters with proper accommodations.
PRELIMINARY DISMISSALS
Peters fails to state viable claims against a number of proposed defendants. He
alleges that ADA coordinators J. Kuhnert and Frank Lawrence should have known about
his accommodation needs but they failed to mitigate the risk. He also alleges that the
officers stated that the cell was compliant, but there is no indication as to when he spoke
to these individuals or their personal involvement in his placement in the cell. Thus, his
claim against Kuhnert and Lawrence is DISMISSED with prejudice. He alleges Modglin
knew of his physical condition and cell condition through grievances, but the simple
denial of a grievance does not state a claim. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir.
2011). Thus, any claim against Modglin is also DISMISSED without prejudice.
Peters also alleges that he met with Dr. Babbich on November 30, 2022, but the
doctor failed to ensure that Peters had the necessary medical services and
accommodations. But Peters alleges that he had access to his medications and an ADA
compliant cell until December 4, 2022. There are no allegations suggesting that Babbich
participated in Peters’s transfer or that he was personally involved in denying Peters
access to his pain medication in December 2022. Thus, Dr. Babbich is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
Peters also alleges that Governor Pritzker is liable for his injuries because he was
aware of systemic issues at the prison. But Pritzker cannot be liable simply in his position
as a high-ranking official who may have known about issues in the prison-system. See e.g.,
Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir. 2009) (“public officials do not have a free-
floating obligation to put things to rights,” and officials such as the head of the
department of corrections are entitled to relegate to prison staff the provision of adequate
conditions of confinement and medical care); Brown v. Randle, 847 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir.
2017) (“Public officials are accountable for their own conduct, but they are not vicariously
liable for the acts of their subordinates.”). There are no allegations of Pritzker’s personal
knowledge or involvement in Peters’s injuries and accommodations. See Qian v. Kautz,
168 F.3d 949, 955 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that the relevant inquiry is whether defendants
“actually knew about the plaintiff’s condition, not whether a reasonable official should
have known”). Thus, any claim against Pritzker is also DISMISSED without prejudice.
Finally, Peters fails to state a claim against Wexford. He alleges only in conclusory
fashion that Wexford had a policy of placing inmates in non-compliant cells. But Peters
alleges that “Wexford devised its deliberate indifference policy removing him from a
compliant cell.” (Doc. 116-1, pp. 18-19). He fails to allege that this was done in response
to an express policy or that the practice was widespread. Shields v. Ill. Dep’t of Corrs., 746
F.3d 782, 796 (7th Cir. 2014) (isolated incidents fail to establish a custom or policy). He
merely alleges that the action was taken against him. Thus, Peters fails to allege a claim
against Wexford.
DISCUSSION
Based on the allegations in the proposed Amended Complaint, the Court
designates the following counts:2
2 The Counts will remain as previously numbered but additional defendants have been added to
the counts. Additional counts have also been added to reflect Peters’s additional claims.
Count 1: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against K. Hamby,
Officer McClanahan, Officer Garcia, and Officer Roberts for
removing Peters from his cell and pushing him out of his
wheelchair causing injuries.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against K.
Hamby, Officer McClanahan, Officer Garcia, and Officer
Roberts for failing to obtain medical care for Peters’s injuries
and placing him in a non-ADA compliant cell.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Matthew Fred, Sergeant Garrett Leposky, Adam Barttelbort,
Anthony Wills, and Counselor Stewart for failing to obtain
medical care for Peters’s injuries and placing him in a non-
ADA compliant cell.
Count 4: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Officer Baker and Officers Stokes for failing to take Peters for
an x-ray or provide him with care for his injuries.
Count 5: ADA claim for Peters being placed in a non-ADA compliant
cell in North 2 segregation.
Count 6: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs
claim against Jane Doe #’s 1-5, M. Ogalsby, and Keisha
Hamby for refusing to provide Peters with his pain
medication in December 2022.
Count 7 First Amendment retaliation claim against K. Hamby, Officer
McClanahan, Officer Garcia, and Officer Roberts for
removing Peters from his cell and pushing him out of his
wheelchair in retaliation for his complaints regarding access
to pain medication.
Peters adequately alleges claims against newly added defendants K. Hamby,
Anthony Wills, and Counselor Stewart. He alleges that K. Hamby participated in the use
of force, failed to obtain medical care for Peters after the incident and placed him in the
non-complaint cell. He also alleges that once in the cell, he personally spoke to Anthony
Wills and Counselor Stewart about his conditions and need for medical care. Thus, the
claims against K. Hamby, Anthony Wills, and Counselor Stewart shall proceed.
Peters also adequately alleges a new claim for deliberate indifference in Count 6.
He alleges that M. Ogalsby, K. Hamby, and unknown Jane Doe nurses were aware that
he needed and was prescribed pain mediation but failed to provide him with that
medication over the course of several days. Thus, newly added Count 6 shall proceed
against Ogalsby, Hamby, and Jane Doe #’s 1-5. Finally, Peters alleges a viable retaliation
claim against Defendants K. Hamby, Officer McClanahan, Officer Garcia, and Officer
Roberts in Count 7.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Peters’s motion to amend (Doc. 116) is GRANTED
in part. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Peters’s pleading (Doc. 116-1) and ADD
M. Ogalsby, Keisha Hamby, Anthony Wills, Counselor Stewart, and Jane Doe #’s 1-5 as
defendants. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to SERVE the newly added defendants in
accordance with the Court’s merit review order (Doc. 12). As to the unknown Jane Does,
Peters shall file a notice with identifying information for the individuals by August 3,
2026. All other potential claims and defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 6, 2026 Tl
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge