Adamcyk v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Page 1 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ALBERT ADAMCYK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRISTINE VINYARD,
DR. SHAH,
DR. CALDWELL,
PAM SESSIONS,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
STEVEN BOWMN,
DR. MYERS, and
JANE DOE 1,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-02237-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Leave to File an Amended and
Supplemental Complaint filed by Plaintiff Albert Adamcyk. (Doc. 68).
B ACKGROUND
Plaintiff Albert Adamcyk, an inmate within the Illinois Department of Corrections
currently housed at Centralia Correctional Center, filed this lawsuit pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights and Illinois state law. (Docs. 1, 18). In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that since August 2020 he has been denied constitutionally adequate
care for his carpel tunnel syndrome and associated pain. (Doc. 1). After reviewing the Complaint
pursuant to Section 1915A, Plaintiff is prosecuting the following count:
Count 1: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
Vinyard, Shah, Myers, Jane Doe 1, Caldwell, and Sessions for
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 13
deliberate 	indifference 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	serious 	medical 	needs
concerning carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands and associated
symptoms.
(Doc. 18). Medical Director Bowman is a defendant in his official capacity only for the purpose
of implementing any injunctive relief that may be ordered. (Id. at p. 13).
On July 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended and Supplemental
Complaint. (Doc. 68). Plaintiff seeks to amend in order to identify Jane Doe 1 as Kelly
Helpingstine, add claims against a new defendant, Dr. Arora, and to modify his request for relief.
(Id. at p. 1-2). Defendants Vinyard and Bowman filed a response in opposition to the Motion.
(Doc. 69). Defendants argue that because Plaintiff seeks to amend only to add declaratory relief
that is duplicative of his other substantive claims, the Motion should be denied. (Id. at p. 1-2).
MOTION FOR L EAVE TO AMEND
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading and that
leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” The Seventh Circuit maintains
a liberal attitude toward the amendment of pleadings “so that cases may be decided on the merits
and not on the basis of technicalities.” Stern v. U.S. Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1334 (7th Cir.
1977). Here, Plaintiff not only seeks to file an amended complaint in order to add to his request
for declaratory relief, but he also amends his request for injunctive relief and asserts allegations
against a newly named defendant. Thus, the proposed amended complaint is not unnecessarily
duplicative. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion is timely filed and will not prejudice Defendants, as
merits discovery has not commenced. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File
an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 68). The Clerk of Court will be directed to file the proposed
amended complaint as “the First Amended Complaint.”1
1 Although Plaintiff titles his proposed amended complaint as “Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint,” it
will be docketed as the First Amended Complaint. The previous proposed amended complaint was filed as a
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 13
The First Amended Complaint is still subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Pursuant
to Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law
is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual
allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
MERIT REVIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff iterates his previous allegations that medical
treatment for his carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands has been delayed and denied while at
Centralia Correctional Center (Centralia). The facts asserted do not vary significantly from those
in the original Complaint, but the Court restates them below:
On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Shah for nerve related pain and numbness
in his right hand. (Doc. 68-1, p. 8). At the time, Plaintiff explained to Dr. Shah that about ten years
previously, he had been tested for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), and the results were “borderline
CTS.” He also told Dr. Shah that his condition had become painful, but he was unable to go to
“nurse sick call” because of the pandemic. Plaintiff asked if he could be seen by a hand specialist.
Dr. Shah told Plaintiff, “Wexford will never approve this type of surgery.” (Id.). Dr. Shah ordered
x-rays for arthritis and a CTS brace for Plaintiff. The x-ray results showed no abnormalities in
Plaintiff’s right hand and “unremarkable right wrist and right thumb.” (Id.).
On October 9, 2020, Plaintiff went to nurse sick call because the plastic of the CTS brace
cut into his hand, causing additional pain and numbness. (Doc. 68-1, p. 9). On November 2, 2020,
Dr. Pelegrin prescribed Plaintiff a new brace without plastic. Dr. Pelegrin recorded in Plaintiff’s
Supplement on the docket. (See Doc. 58, 59).
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 13
medical chart that as of December 6, 2020, Plaintiff had received his new brace. (Id.).
For the next year, Plaintiff continued to complain about pain and numbness in his hand
“only to go on deaf ears.” (Doc. 68-1, p. 9). His nurse sick call requests were cancelled many
times. (Id.).
On November 13, 2021, Plaintiff went to nurse sick call for pain and numbness in his right
hand. (Doc. 68-1, p. 9). He describes his pain as a level 6 out of 10 and states that his hand was
throbbing and stabbing intermittently. (Id.).
On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff was burned while working in the kitchen. (Doc. 68-1, p.
9). He states that boiling hot water accidentally poured on his right hand, which was gloved. Due
to his CTS, he had a delayed reaction to the pain. By the time he realized that boiling water was
pouring on his hand, he had incurred severe burns. When being treated by the nurse for the burns,
Plaintiff asked if he could receive a medical permit for a “lay-in.” The nurse told Plaintiff to ask
the kitchen supervisor. Plaintiff’s supervisor told him that without a “lay-in” permit from the
doctor, Plaintiff would lose his job and receive disciplinary action if he did not show up for work.
(Id.).
By March 22, 2022, Plaintiff’s hand symptoms had worsened. (Doc. 68-1, p. 9-10). The
pain and numbness were spreading to all his fingers, and he had a pins and needles sensation in
his hand. (Id.). At nurse sick call, Plaintiff described his pain as a level 8 out of 10. Plaintiff told
the nurse that his pain medication was ineffective. (Id. at p. 10). Plaintiff had an appointment on
April 4, 2022, to see the doctor, but the appointment was canceled. (Id.).
On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff was seen by Physician Assistant Smith. (Doc. 68-1, p. 10).
Smith evaluated Plaintiff’s symptoms and ordered muscle rub. The rub was not helpful in treating
Plaintiff’s pain. It only decreased the swelling. (Id.).
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 13
On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff returned to nurse sick call and complained that his pain had
reached a level 9 out of 10. (Doc. 68-1, p. 10). The nurse referred Plaintiff to the doctor and gave
him ineffective pain medication. (Id.).
On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff was seen by a nurse practitioner for pain and numbness in his
right hand. (Doc. 68-1, p. 10). The nurse practitioner examined Plaintiff and prescribed Voltaren,
an arthritis medication. (Id.).
On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff injured his left hand when he tried to deflect a rogue softball.
(Doc. 68-1, p. 10). The impact of the ball caused the middle finger to bend backwards “causing a
lump in the middle of his left hand, and extreme pain.” (Id.). On September 19, 2022, he was seen
by Dr. Myers for pain and numbness he was now experiencing in both hands. (Id.). Dr. Myers
ordered an x-ray for the newly injured left hand but did nothing for Plaintiff’s right hand. (Id.).
Plaintiff returned to nurse sick call on September 21, 2022, for pain in his hands. (Doc. 68-
1, p. 11). Plaintiff was seen by K. Helpingstine. Helpingstine sent Plaintiff back to his cell without
treatment because two days before he had just been seen by Dr. Myers. (Id.).
On October 13, 2022, the pain in Plaintiff’s right hand reached a level 9.5 out of 10. (Doc.
68-1, p. 11). Plaintiff returned to nurse sick call. The nurse noted that Plaintiff had a “golf ball
size” lump in the middle of his left hand, and he could not make a fist. The nurse gave Plaintiff a
short supply of ibuprofen and referred him to the doctor. (Id.).
On October 23, 2022, Plaintiff had an appointment scheduled with the doctor. (Doc. 38-1,
p. 11). Prior to the appointment, Plaintiff was told by Helpingstine that the appointment was for
Plaintiff’s rash and “not for his hands.” Plaintiff explained that the rash had already healed and
that his hands were causing him a lot of pain. Helpingstine told Plaintiff to return to his cell house,
cancelled the appointment, and falsely recorded in the medical record that he refused to be seen.
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 13
(Id. at p. 11-12).
Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Caldwell on November 3, 2022. (Doc. 68-1, p. 12). Plaintiff told
Dr. Caldwell about his “borderline CTS” diagnosis ten years prior. Dr. Caldwell noticed the lump
on Plaintiff’s left hand and noted that Plaintiff was already taking Voltaren. Dr. Caldwell did not
refer Plaintiff to a specialist. (Id.).
On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff went to nurse sick call about the pain in his hands and
numbness. (Doc. 68-1, p. 12). The nurse gave Plaintiff the same ineffective pain medication and
referred Plaintiff to the doctor. (Id.). On December 6, 2022, Plaintiff returned to nurse sick call,
and the nurse noted swelling in both hands. (Id. at p. 12-13). She also noticed that the x-rays
showed signs of arthritis and that the Voltaren was not helping with Plaintiff’s pain. (Id. at p. 13).
The next day, Plaintiff was called to see Dr. Caldwell. Dr. Caldwell referred Plaintiff to an outside
hand specialist. (Id.).
On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff sent a “kite” to the healthcare unit administrator, Christine
Vinyard, asking when he would be sent out for his evaluation with the hand specialist. (Doc. 68-
1, p. 13). Vinyard did not respond until two months later stating, “Grievance #E23-3-64 sent to
Wexford DON/SA in regards to scheduling.” (Id.).
Plaintiff was seen by an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Mulhern, on January 27, 2023, who
diagnosed Plaintiff as needing carpal tunnel release surgery. (Doc. 68-1, p. 13). On February 27,
2023, Plaintiff wrote the healthcare unit asking for the date that the surgery was scheduled and was
told that no appointment had been made. (Id.).
On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff was seen by a nurse practitioner, who prescribed him
naproxen. (Doc. 68-1, p. 14). Plaintiff states that this medicine helped alleviate some of his pain.
(Id.).
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 6 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 7 of 13
On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff again wrote to the healthcare unit asking about his surgery.
(Doc. 68-1, p. 14). Plaintiff received a response from Vinyard stating that she had sent the request
to “Wexford schedules.” On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff asked a nurse when his surgery was going to
be scheduled, and the nurse told him that she was not allowed to tell him. (Id.).
Plaintiff saw Dr. Caldwell on June 14, 2023, for “hand pain arthritis.” (Doc. 68-1, p. 14).
Plaintiff asked for pain medication, and Dr. Caldwell would not give it to him. (Id. at p. 15). On
July 22, 2023, Plaintiff returned to nurse sick call because his pain was unbearable, and the pain
medication he was taking was not helping. (Id.). The nurse gave Plaintiff another short supply of
ineffective pain medication. He went to nurse sick call again on August 28, 2023, for his pain.
(Id.).
On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff was sent to see Dr. Mulhern for a pre-operation
evaluation. (Doc. 68-1, p. 15-16). Dr. Mulhern recorded that Plaintiff needed surgery, as prescribed
eight months previously, and gave Plaintiff a cortione shot for his left hand. (Id. at p. 16).
Plaintiff went to nurse sick call on September 17, 2023, for his constant hand pain. (Doc.
68-1, p.16). The nurse told Plaintiff that he could not be given pain medication before surgery. He
went to nurse sick call again on September 30, 2023, for pain and was given a short supply of
ibuprofen and Tylenol. At this point, Plaintiff asserts that his pain level was a 10 out of 10 and his
hand felt like it was on fire. When he ran out of pain medicine, Plaintiff went back to nurse sick
call on October 2, 2023. The nurse noticed “how swollen his right hand was.” (Id.).
Plaintiff received surgery on his right hand on October 10, 2023. (Doc. 68-1, p. 16).
Following the surgery, Plaintiff was housed in the infirmary at Centralia. Dr. Mulhern had
prescribed Tylenol 3 for his pain for the first five days and then Tramadol as needed. The nurses
at Centralia, however, only gave Plaintiff Tramadol, which was not as effective. (Id.).
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 7 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 8 of 13
Plaintiff had an appointment with Dr. Mulhern on October 23, 2023, to have his stitches
removed. (Doc. 68-1, p. 16). During the appointment, Dr. Mulhern recommended caporal tunnel
release surgery on Plaintiff’s left hand. (Id. at p. 17). Dr. Mulhern did not give Plaintiff a cortisone
shot because he wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible. (Id.).
At nurse sick call on November 30, 2023, Plaintiff asked about his surgery. (Doc. 68-1, p.
17). The nurse told Plaintiff that she would inquire with Pam Sessions to see if the referral had
been processed. On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Arora, at Centralia, for numbness
he was still experiencing in his right hand. Dr. Arora prescribed Plaintiff’s six months of Tylenol.
Plaintiff, however, was only given a single month worth’s of Tylenol and did not receive a
prescription refill until July 2024. (Id.).
Plaintiff asked about his surgery again at nurse sick call on December 30, 2023. (Doc. 68-
1, p. 17). Plaintiff had surgery on his left hand on January 26, 2024. According to Plaintiff, Dr.
Mulher recommended that Plaintiff have six-month appointment for his left hand following
surgery to see if he needed another cortisone shot for his left hand. When Plaintiff went to nurse
sick call, the nurse told him that Dr. Mulhern wrote in his final report that Plaintiff did not need
surgery. (Id.).
On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff wrote to Vinyard asking about the follow-up appointment. (Doc.
68-1, p. 18). She responded that she was checking on his appointment “and/or injection,” and
informed Plaintiff, “We can release your medical hold if you do not want to pursue this follow-
up.” Plaintiff responded that he did not want to “release the medical hold” because he was still
having issues with his left hand and experiencing pain in the center of his left hand. (Id.).
On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff had an appointment with Dr. Arora “for multiple medical
issues, including his need for the six month follow-up.” (Doc. 68-1, p. 18). Dr. Arora told Plaintiff
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 8 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 9 of 13
that she was not going to address the follow-up appointment issue because “Wexford does not like
her to do to many things in one visit.” (Id.).
As of writing the First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2025, Plaintiff had still not
received a follow-up appointment with Dr. Mulhern. (Doc. 68-1, p. 18). Plaintiff states that
according to medical records, Dr. Arora has misread Dr. Mulhern’s recommendation ignoring his
statement that “if that does recur that he should return for a follow-up.” (Id. at p. 18-19). Plaintiff
asserts that he still has pain in the middle his left hand where the lump is located, and the numbness
he is experiencing in his right hand is permanent due to the delay in receiving surgery. (Id. at p.
18).
As stated, the allegations in the First Amended Complaint are substantially similar to those
in the Complaint. Therefore, for reasons set forth in the Court’s previous Merit Review Order
(Doc. 18, p. 7-8), the Court finds that Plaintiff has again stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Wexford, Vinyard, Shah, Myers, Caldwell, Helpingstine, 2 and
Sessions.
Medical Director Bowman will remain a defendant in his official capacity only for the
purpose of implementing any injunctive relief that may be ordered. (Doc. 18, p. 11; Doc. 68-1, p.
3). To the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from Vinyard, this claim is dismissed. (See Doc.
68-1, p. 22). Plaintiff is suing Vinyard in her individual capacity only, and Section 1983 “does not
permit injunctive relief against state officials sued in their individual” capacities. Greenawalt v.
Ind. Dept. of Corr., 397 F. 3d 587, 589 (7th Cir. 2005).
As for newly named Dr. Arora, Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Arora treated him on December 6,
2023, and gave him a six-month prescription for Tylenol. (Doc. 68-1, p. 17). Plaintiff claims that
2 Jane Doe 1 has been identified as Kelly Helpingstine.
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 9 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 10 of 13
he only received the medication for a month and then had to wait until July for a refill. (Id.). He
argues that because he was denied pain medication, he experienced unnecessary pain and suffering.
(Id.). Plaintiff saw Dr. Arora again on January 23, 2025, but Dr. Arora would not address his
request for a follow-up appointment with Dr. Mulhern because of Wexford policy, and she
negligently misread Dr. Mulhern’s report resulting in Plaintiff not being referred for his follow-up
appointment. (Id. at p. 18-19). These allegations are not sufficient to establish deliberate
indifference on the part of Dr. Arora.
As this Court has discussed, to state a claim for deliberate indifference, an inmate must put
forward facts implicating both an “objective and subjective element, namely that: (1) an
objectively serious medical need was deprived; and (2) the official knew that the risk of injury was
substantial but nevertheless failed to take reasonable measures to prevent it.” See Chapman v.
Keltner, 241 F.3d 842, 845 (citing Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845 (7th Cir. 1999)).
Deliberate indifference is a high bar. “Neither negligence nor even gross negligence is sufficient
basis for liability; rather, liability attaches only if the conduct is intentional or criminally reckless.”
Id. (citing Salazar v. City of Chi., 940 F. 2d 233, 238 (7th Cir. 1991)).
Here, there is nothing from which the Court can plausibly infer that Dr. Arora knew that
Plaintiff only received a month’s worth of Tylenol, rather than the six-month dosage she had
prescribed on December 6, 2023, and that as a result his pain went untreated for several months.
Without knowledge of Plaintiff’s medication needs, she could not have disregarded a serious risk
to his health.
Plaintiff’s allegations that Dr. Arora acted with deliberate indifference by misreading Dr.
Mulhern’s post-surgery report and for not referring him to a follow-up appointment also do not
amount to deliberate indifference. In Plaintiff’s exhibits submitted with the First Amended
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 10 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 11 of 13
Complaint, Dr. Mulher recorded on February 8, 2024:
I think he has recovered very well from both carpal tunnel releases…I do not think
any 	further 	follow-up 	is 	necessary 	now 	that 	the 	median 	nerve 	has 	been
decompressed I would not anticipate further symptoms into the hand. We have
discussed the possibility of recurrent triggering of the middle finger however and I
recommended that if that does recur that he should return for a follow-up and we
would try at least 1 more local injection before considering surgical trigger finger
release. Otherwise I think his result from the right side is very good and no further
intervention will be necessary so we can discharge him from care.
(Doc. 68-1, p. 48). According to this exhibit, Dr. Mulher only recommended a follow-up visit if
Plaintiff experienced “recurrent triggering of the middle finger.” (Id.). Plaintiff does not complain
of trigger finger, only of pain in the middle of his left hand and numbness in his right hand. Dr.
Mulher recommends discharging Plaintiff from care. Thus, Dr. Arora did not disregard Dr.
Mulher’s recommendations and act with deliberate indifference by not referring Plaintiff for a
follow-up appointment or addressing Plaintiff’s follow-up appointment request at the January 23,
2025 appointment. Because Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr.
Arora, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claim
against her. Plaintiff’s negligence claim against Dr. Arora, designated as Count 2 in the First
Amended Complaint, is dismissed. (Id. at p. 21).
In summary, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint survives review pursuant to Section
1915A. Plaintiff is proceeding on the following count:
Count 1: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
Vinyard, Shah, Myers, Caldwell, Sessions, and Helpingstine for
deliberate 	indifference 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	serious 	medical 	needs
concerning carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands and associated
symptoms.
The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is mentioned in the
First Amended Complaint but not specified above should be considered dismissed without
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 11 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 12 of 13
prejudice as inadequately pled under the Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007) pleading standard.
PENDING M OTIONS
Because Plaintiff has identified Jane Doe 1 in the First Amended Complaint as Kelly
Helpingstine, the Motion seeking to substitute the unknown defendant is DENIED as moot. (Doc.
78).
The Motion for Status is GRANTED. (Doc. 80). Now that the Court has reviewed the First
Amended Complaint, and the allegations against Defendants remain substantially the same, the
First Amended Complaint does not moot the arguments raised in the Motion for Summary
Judgement filed by Myers, Sessions, Shah, and Wexford. (Doc. 71). Plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time is GRANTED, and his response in opposition is DEEMED timely filed. (Doc.
75, 76). The Motion for Summary Judgment has therefore been fully briefed and is awaiting a
ruling by the Court.
The stay on the deadline to file a dispositive motion on the issue of exhaustion imposed for
Defendants Bowman and Vinyard is LIFTED. (Doc. 74). Defendants Bowman and Vinyard shall
have until April 15, 2026, to file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons stated above, pursuant to Rules 15 and 16 and after review of the proposed
amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 68). The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the proposed amended
complaint (Doc. 68-1) submitted to the Court on July 25, 2025, as the “First Amended Complaint.”
The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to serve process on Kelly Helpingstine in
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 12 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 13 of 13
accordance with the original Merit Review Order at Doc. 18. Because there are no surviving claims
against Defendant Dr. Arora, the Clerk shall TERMINATE her as a party.
All Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
First Amended Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues as
stated in this merit review order and the original Merit Review Order of the Complaint (Doc.
18).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 18, 2026
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-02237-SPM Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 Page 13 of 13 Page ID
#<pageID>