Kruger v. Lashbrook et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSHUA KRUGER, 	)
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSH MILLEUR, JOHN MCCALEB,
JACOB MATHENY and WEXFORD
HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 	20-cv-24-RJD
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Joshua Kruger, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	He alleged that his constitutional
rights were violated while he was incarcerated in segregation at the North-2 building at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”) from November 2017-April 2018. 	Docs. 12, 126; Doc. 228-1,
¶¶ 	Following the Court’s rulings on summary judgment and a settlement reached between
Plaintiff and Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc., this case proceeds to trial on the following
claims:
Count One: 	Eight 	Amendment 	conditions 	of 	confinement 	claim 	against
Defendants 	Milleur, 	McCaleb, 	and 	Matheny, 	for 	placing 	and
keeping Plaintiff in a deplorable segregation cell without adequate
bedding and cleaning supplies.
Count Two: 	Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against
Defendant Milleur for forcing Plaintiff to live around severely
mentally ill (“SMI”) prisoners.
Docs. 245, 272.
Case 3:20-cv-00024-RJD Document 281 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff transferred from Menard to Pontiac Correctional Center in September 2018. 	Doc.
126, ¶34. 	He filed this lawsuit pro se on January 7, 2020 and subsequently moved the Court to
recruit counsel for him. 	Docs. 1, 92. 	The Court recruited an attorney for Plaintiff but later
granted counsel’s motion to withdraw based on Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the representation
he received. Docs. 98, 192, 201. 	The Court recruited another attorney for Plaintiff, but that
relationship ended when Plaintiff moved the Court to once again proceed pro se. 	Doc 230, 231.
This case is set for trial on February 3, 2026 (three business days from the date of this
order). 	The Court held a final pretrial conference on January 22, 2026. 	Defense counsel objected
to most of the witnesses disclosed by Plaintiff to testify at trial because Plaintiff had not named
those witnesses in his Initial Disclosures. 	The Court sustained Defendant’s objections but found
that Plaintiff could call a witness he had previously disclosed in his Initial Disclosures, Gregory
Turley. 	Docs. 278, 279. 	However, this Court has specific procedures in place for a pro se party
to issue subpoenas; namely, the pro se party must file a motion “for an Order authorizing the
issuance of the requested subpoena[]s for [the] specific witness[]”. S.D. Il. Local Rule 45.1(b). 	In
the motion, the pro se party “must address the relevancy of the subject person[]”. 	Id. 	Plaintiff
had never moved the Court to allow him to issue a subpoena to Mr. Turley. 	On January 27, 2026,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide a status report regarding whether he had verified that Mr.
Turley was willing to testify without first being subpoenaed. 	Doc. 279. 	If Plaintiff had done
so, the Court would issue a writ for Mr. Turley to appear. 	Id.
Yesterday (January 28, 2026), Plaintiff filed a status report in which he explained that he
had a conversation with Gregory Turley “years ago” regarding Mr. Turley testifying “to the
conditions at Menard in 2017-2018, especially in the North 2 segregation cellhouse.” 	Plaintiff
wants the Court to “issue a subpoena for Mr. Turley to testify by Zoom technology” on February
Case 3:20-cv-00024-RJD Document 281 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
4, 2026. 	Plaintiff explains that Mr. Turley is “aging” and that it would be unduly burdensome
for him to be transported from his current correctional facility.
The Court frequently allows witnesses to testify via videoconference and would consider
issuing a writ to secure Mr. Turley’s presence via videoconference under certain circumstances.
What is problematic is that Plaintiff has not already subpoenaed Mr. Turley, or even talked to him.
To the extent Plaintiff is now (less than a week before trial) asking the Court for an Order that
authorizes the issuance of a subpoena upon Mr. Turley pursuant to Local Rule 45.1(b), that request
is DENIED. 	Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient explanation for the relevancy and foundation
for Mr. Turley’s testimony. 	Plaintiff has not spoken to Mr. Turley in “years” and has not provided
the Court with specific information regarding whether Mr. Turley was housed in North 2 from
November 2017-April 2018 at Menard, or if Mr. Turley recalls the conditions in which he was
housed during that time. 	Nothing in the record reflects whether Mr. Turley observed the specific
conditions encountered by Plaintiff.
To the extent Plaintiff is asking the Court to serve Mr. Turley with a subpoena, that is not
a service the Court performs, even if Plaintiff had sufficiently explained the relevancy of Mr.
Turley’s testimony. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and Local Rule 45.1. 	While the Court may issue a
writ, the undersigned declines to do so when Plaintiff has not spoken to Mr. Turley in “years” and
Mr. Turley did not give a deposition in this case. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the Court to
arrange for Mr. Turley to testify is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 29, 2026
s/ 	Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:20-cv-00024-RJD Document 281 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>