Jackson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
YOLANDA JACKSON, as Administrator 	)
of the Estate of KEVIN CURTIS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 3:20-cv-900-DWD
)
NICKOLAS MITCHELL, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
DAVID W. DUGAN, District Judge:
I. 	COUNSEL OF RECORD
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Sarah Grady (sarah@kaplangrady.com)
Howard Kaplan (howard@kaplangrady.com)
David Schmutzer (david@kaplangrady.com)
Adam Smith (adam@kaplangrady.com)
Mattie Haag (mattie@kaplangrady.com)
T: (312) 852-2675
Attorneys for Defendants:
For Defendant Mitchell:
Jeanine Armstrong (jeanine.armstrong@ilag.gov)
T: (618) 236-8784
For Defendants Bennett, Frerich, Frerking, and Walls:
R. Brandon Shultz (robert.shultz@ilag.gov)
Jennifer Powell (jennifer.powell@ilag.gov)
T: (618) 236-8781
II. 	NATURE OF THE CASE
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 11
This case concerns the death of Kevin Curtis at Menard Correctional Center on
September 5, 2018. The plaintiff is Yolanda Jackson, Mr. Curtis’s mother and the
administrator of his estate. The defendants are Nickolas Mitchell, Jeremy Frerich,
and Charlie Frerking, Andrew Bennett, and Gail Walls. Ms. Jackson alleges that
the defendants disregarded Mr. Curtis’s serious medical needs on September 5,
2018, in violation of his rights under the United States Constitution and state law.
Ms. Jackson seeks monetary damages for Mr. Curtis’s pain and suffering, death,
and the loss that his family suffered as a result of his death.
The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny they are liable to
Plaintiff in any way.
III. 	SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This is an action for compensatory and punitive damages brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
The basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is federal question and
supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.
Defendants dispute the Court’s jurisdiction over the claims brought pursuant to
Illinois law. Defendants do not dispute the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.
IV. 	UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
The following facts are not disputed:
1. 	Kevin Curtis entered IDOC custody on July 7, 2017.
2. 	From July 19, 2017, until his death on September 5, 2018, Mr. Curtis was a
prisoner at Menard Correctional Center in Menard, Illinois.
3. 	On September 5, 2018, Defendant Nickolas Mitchell was employed by
IDOC as a correctional officer at Menard Correctional Center.
4. 	On September 5, 2018, Defendant Andrew Bennett was employed by IDOC
as a correctional sergeant at Menard Correctional Center.
5. 	On September 5, 2018, Defendant Jeremy Frerich was employed by IDOC
as a correctional officer at Menard Correctional Center.
6. 	On September 5, 2018, Defendant Charlie Frerking was employed by IDOC
as a correctional officer at Menard Correctional Center.
7. 	On September 5, 2018, Defendant Gail Walls was employed by IDOC as the
healthcare unit administrator at Menard Correctional Center.
8. 	At all relevant times, each Defendant acted under color of law.
9. 	Defendant Nickolas Mitchell was the correctional officer assigned to crisis-
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 11
watch duty on 5 Gallery between 3:00 and 11:00 p.m. on September 5, 2018.
10. 	Defendant Jeremy Frerich was assigned as the “crank officer” for 5 Gallery
during the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift on September 5, 2018.
11. 	Defendant Charlie Frerking was assigned as the “gallery officer” for 5
Gallery during the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift on September 5, 2018.
12. 	Defendant Andrew Bennett was assigned as sergeant of the North 2
cellhouse during the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift on September 5, 2018.
13. 	Mr. Curtis was pronounced dead at 6:37 p.m. on September 5, 2018.
14. 	Mr. Curtis was 31 years old at the time of his death.
The parties propose to convey these facts to the jury in the following manner: The
parties would like to discuss when and in what manner these facts will be
conveyed to the jury.
V. 	CONTROVERTED FACTS
The following facts remain disputed by the parties:
1. 	Whether 	Defendants 	violated 	Mr. 	Curtis’s 	rights 	under 	the 	Eighth
Amendment by exhibiting deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need.
2. 	Whether Defendants Bennett, Frerich, Frerking, or Mitchell violated Mr.
Curtis’s rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to intervene in the
violation of Mr. Curtis’s constitutional rights by another state official.
3. 	Whether Defendants Bennett, Frerich, Frerking, or Walls violated Mr.
Curtis’s rights under state law through their actions and/or omissions.
4. 	Whether Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and/or punitive damages
and, if so entitled, what quantum of compensatory and/or punitive
damages is appropriate.
The parties agree that these controverted facts shall not be read to the jury.
VI. 	AGREED TO ISSUES OF LAW
The parties agree that the Court is to decide the following legal issues:
1. 	Whether 	Plaintiff 	may 	submit 	Eighth 	Amendment 	claims 	of 	deliberate
indifference by Defendants to the jury.
2. 	Whether Plaintiff may submit Eighth Amendment claims of failure to intervene
in a violation of Mr. Curtis’s constitutional rights to the jury.
3. 	Whether Plaintiff may submit wrongful death claims and/or survival claims
under Illinois state law to the jury, as to Defendants Frerking, Frerich, Bennett,
or Walls.
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 11
4. 	Whether Plaintiff is entitled to seek compensatory damages.
5. 	Whether Plaintiff is entitled to seek punitive damages.
6. 	Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
7. 	Whether Defendants Bennett, Frerich, Frerking and Walls are entitled to
sovereign immunity, and whether these Defendants are entitled to assert any
such defense.
VII. 	WITNESSES
NOTE: Identification of witnesses in this Final Pretrial Order does not relieve
the parties of their obligation to timely file pretrial disclosures required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). The parties should simply list below
the witnesses that have been disclosed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3) whom they
intend to call at trial. Every party to the action should include a list of witnesses
in the form set forth below. Any witness not properly disclosed will not be
allowed to testify.
Plaintiff intends to call the following witnesses:
Expert witnesses:
1. 	Dr. Francisco Diaz
Non-expert witnesses:
1. 	Yolanda Jackson
2. 	Clarissa Curtis
3. 	Rachel Henry
4. 	Shema Givens
5. 	Travis Jones
6. 	Wynton Collins
7. 	Brad Thomas
8. 	Dr. Christina Floreani
9. 	Dr. Lisa Goldman
10. 	Nickolas Mitchell
11. 	Charlie Frerking
12. 	Jeremy Frerich
13. 	Andrew Bennett
14. 	Gail Walls
In addition, Plaintiff may call the following witnesses:
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 11
Expert witnesses:
1. 	Dr. Ryan Herrington
2. 	Dr. Richard Cockerill
3. 	Dr. Kara Lynch
4. 	Dr. Sarah Riley
Non-expert witnesses:
1. 	Angela Crain (IDOC Rule 30(b)(6))
2. 	Kevin Reichert (IDOC Rule 30(b)(6))
3. 	Shane Reister (IDOC Rule 30(b)(6))
4. 	Trevor Rowland (IDOC Rule 30(b)(6))
5. 	Anthony Jones
6. 	Melissa Pappas
7. 	Jacob Weatherford
8. 	Michael Moldenhauer
9. 	Caleb Zang
10. 	Dr. Kamal Sabharwal
11. 	Any of the witnesses identified by Defendants in their Rule 26(a)(3)
disclosures
Defendant Mitchell intends to call the following witnesses:1
Expert witnesses:
1. 	Dr. Kamal Sabharwal
Non-expert witnesses:
1. 	Plaintiff Yolanda Jackson;
2. 	Defendant Nickolas Mitchell;
3. 	Gail Walls;
4. 	Charlie Frerking;
5. 	Jeremy Frerich;
6. 	Andrew Bennett;
7. 	Matthew Dulaney;
8. 	Brad Thomas; and
9. 	Angela Crain.
In addition, Defendant Mitchell may call the following witnesses:
1 Plaintiff filed motions in limine regarding Defendants’ disclosures and ability to call certain of
the witnesses they identified. (Docs. 343 & 373).
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 11
Expert witnesses:
1. 	Dr. John Slish;
2. 	Dr. Michael Pins;
3. 	Dr. Ryan Herrington;
4. 	Dr. Francisco Diaz;
5. 	Dr. Richard Cockerill.
Non-expert witnesses:
1. 	Christina Floreani;
2. 	Eva Leven;
3. 	Shane Reister;
4. 	Michael Moldenhauer;
5. 	Kevin Reichert;
6. 	Caleb Zang;
7. 	Curtis Dallas;
8. 	Matthew Dulaney;
9. 	Maryann Merideth;
10. 	Elizabeth Knop;
11. 	Latika Burns;
12. 	Chantel McClure;
13. 	Clarissa Curtis;
14. 	Menard Correctional Center Records Custodian; and
15. 	Chester Memorial Hospital Records Custodian.
16. 	Any of the witnesses identified by Plaintiff in her Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures.
Defendants Bennett, Frerich, Frerking, and Walls intend to call the following
witnesses:
Non-Expert witnesses:
1. 	Plaintiff Yolanda Jackson;
2. 	Defendant Andrew Bennett;
3. 	Defendant Jeremy Frerich;
4. 	Defendant Charlie Frerking;
5. 	Defendant Gail Walls;
6. 	Defendant Nickolas Mitchell.
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 7 of 11
In addition, Defendants Bennett, Frerich, Frerking, and Walls may call the
following witnesses:
Expert witnesses:
1. 	Dr. John Slish;
2. 	Dr. Michael Pins;
3. 	Dr. John Shields;
4. 	Dr. Ryan Herrington;
5. 	Dr. Francisco Diaz;
6. 	Dr. Richard Cockerill.
Non-expert witnesses:
1. 	Anthony Jones;
2. 	Brad Thomas;
3. 	Dr. Kamal Sabharwal;
4. 	Dr. Lisa Goldman;
5. 	Kevin Reichert;
6. 	Caleb Zang;
7. 	Angela Crain;
8. 	Shane Reister;
9. 	Trevor Rowland;
10. 	Matthew Dulaney;
11. 	Curtis Dallas;
12. 	Jerry Witthoft;
13. 	Chantel McClure;
14. 	Dr. Sarah Riley;
15. 	Dr. Kara Lynch;
16. 	Christina Floreani;
17. 	Melissa Childs;
18. 	Shema Givens;
19. 	Rachel Henry;
20. 	Travis Jones;
21. 	Tiffany Neal;
22. 	Michael Moldenhauer;
23. 	Carlos Barbour;
24. 	Menard Correctional Center Records Custodian;
25. 	Menard Correctional Center Medical Records Custodian;
26. 	Any of the witnesses identified by Plaintiff in her Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures.
VIII. 	EXHIBITS
Plaintiff filed her operative Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures on December 31, 2025. Dkt.
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 7 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 8 of 11
339. Defendant Mitchell filed his operative Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures on December
29, 2025. Dkt. 338. Defendants Bennett, Frerich, Frerking, and Walls filed their
operative Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures on December 29, 2025. Dkt. 337. Defendants’
objections to Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures were filed on January 7 and 8,
2026. (Docs. 350 & 353). Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(3)
disclosures were filed on January 7, 2026. (Doc. 349).
NOTE: The parties shall identify the exhibits they intend to use at trial in the
disclosures timely made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3).
When possible, objections filed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3) will be resolved at the
Final Pretrial Conference. The parties shall bring their Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures
and any objections to the Final Pretrial Conference.
In addition to the provisions of Rule 26, the parties shall prepare an Exhibit List
using Judge Dugan’s approved form (a revision of AO Form 187). In addition to
this exhibit list, the parties will receive an email from Judge Dugan’s Courtroom
Deputy Clerk, Dana Winkeler, ahead of trial with information about preparing a
separate exhibit list for use with the Jury Exhibit Retrieval System (JERS). Both
exhibit lists must be prepared by all parties. Exhibit lists are generally due the
Wednesday before the first day of trial. The Courtroom Deputy will provide
more information regarding the deadline in an email ahead of trial.
IX. 	DAMAGES
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for Kevin Curtis’s wrongful
death and prolonged pain and suffering, and as to Defendants Bennett, Frerich,
Frerking, and Walls, for the loss of consortium and other services that Mr. Curtis’s
next of kin suffered as a result of his death. 2
Defendants dispute Plaintiff is entitled to any damages.
X. 	BIFURCATED TRIAL
No party has moved for bifurcation.
XI. 	TRIAL BRIEFS
Plaintiff filed a trial brief, regarding the admissibility of certain party statements,
on January 23, 2026. (Doc. 375). Otherwise, the parties did not file trial briefs, and
2 Defendants have not raised any objections to the phrasing of Plaintiff’s statement of damages based on
the parties’ understanding that this statement will not be read to the jury.
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 8 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 9 of 11
they do not intend to file any further unless the need arises or briefs are requested
by the Court.
XII. 	MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Pursuant to the Court’s Order, motions in limine were due on January 5, 2026. Dkt.
327. Responses, if any, were due on January 12, 2026. Id. Defendants received an
extension to January 16, 2026. (Docs. 361 & 365). The Motions in Limine were
resolved at the follow-up Final Pretrial Conference on January 22, 2026. (Doc. 373).
Plaintiff’s Statement:
Plaintiff anticipated moving in limine to bar Defendants from attempting to call
experts disclosed by the Wexford Defendants (whether retained or unretained). If
Defendants were not barred from calling Wexford’s experts, Plaintiff anticipated
renewing her prior Daubert motions to exclude, in whole or in part, the testimony
and opinions of those experts.
XIII. 	DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
The parties anticipate that one or more witnesses may be presented via deposition
designation. The parties anticipate working collaboratively to designate any such
deposition transcripts and to present any such disputed objections to the Court in
timely fashion, as set forth below.
Counsel must confer prior to trial to determine which deposition objections can be
resolved without Court intervention. To the extent the parties reach an agreement,
all copies of the deposition (and the Court’s original) should be marked to strike
the testimony that will not be read to the jury.
If objections remain that require a ruling by the Court, counsel shall notify the
Court prior to jury selection on the first day of trial. At that time, counsel shall
provide the Court with copies of the deposition(s) with all disputed portions
highlighted, flagged and marked via post-it note or separate sheet of objections
with page and line references.
XIV. 	JURY INSTRUCTIONS
The parties have submitted proposed jury instructions. They were due by 12 p.m.
on January 7, 2026.
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 9 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 10 of 11
XV. 	OTHER TRIAL-RELATED MATTERS
A. Trial Date. Jury Trial will begin on February 2, 2026.
B. 	Length of Trial. The probable length of trial is five to eight days.
C. Voir Dire. Judge Dugan conducts preliminary voir dire which also includes
some demographic and qualification questions. After Judge Dugan concludes
preliminary questioning, each party may participate, with limitations imposed
by the Court, in voir dire separately. Counsel also may request that Judge
Dugan question jurors on certain issues that may be sensitive or which a party
would rather the Judge ask instead of counsel. In its discretion, the Court may
conduct the voir dire without participation of counsel. In light of privacy
concerns, counsel should only refer to prospective jurors by their juror number.
Any voir dire questions that counsel specifically want Judge Dugan to ask shall
be submitted via e-mail to DWDpd@ilsd.uscourts.gov prior to the first day of
trial.
D. Number of Jurors. In civil cases, at least six jurors will be chosen. Additional
jurors may also be chosen. All remaining jurors at the end of closing arguments
will participate in deliberations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48.
E. 	Witness Exclusion. On motion of counsel, Judge Dugan will enter an Order
excluding witnesses from the courtroom during trial. Counsel will bear
primary responsibility for monitoring enforcement of the Order.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
_/s/ Sarah Grady____________________
Attorney for Plaintiff
_/s/ Jeanine Armstrong______________
Attorney for Defendant Mitchell
_/s/ R. Brandon Shultz______________
Attorney for Defendants Bennett, Frerich, Frerking, and Walls
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 10 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 11 of 11
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2026
_________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
s/ David W. Dugan
Case 3:20-cv-00900-DWD Document 376 Filed 01/26/26 Page 11 of 11 Page ID
#<pageID>