Cross v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LATRON CROSS, #M18686,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
LATOYA HUGHES,
ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
ANTHONY WILLIS,
KELLEY PIERCE,
JACOB GUETERSLOH,
N.P. MOLDENHAUER,
CONNIE DOLCE,
NURSE AMANDA,
SGT. JOHN DOE 1,
LT. JOHN DOE 2,
LT. JOHN DOE 3,
C/O JOHN DOE 4,
C/O JOHN DOE 5,
NURSE JANE DOE 1,
and NURSE JANE DOE 2,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-cv-00423-SMY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Latron Cross, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this action
pursuant 	to 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983 	for 	constitutional 	deprivations 	stemming 	from 	allegedly
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Menard Correctional Center. He seeks declaratory,
monetary, and injunctive relief.1 The Complaint is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
1 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief consisting of an order requiring installation of working fire alarms, smoke
detectors, and sprinklers in the inmate living areas in Menard’s North 2 Segregation Unit. Because the Complaint does
not mention a request for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65, the Court construes Plaintiff’s request as one for permanent injunctive relief at the close of the
case. If he desires interim relief, Plaintiff may file a Rule 65 Motion for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction.
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
which requires the Court to screen and dismiss portions that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail
to state a claim for relief, or request money damages from an immune defendant. Id.
The Complaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 7-26): Plaintiff
sustained injuries to his back during a stabbing incident in 2008 or 2009. Id. at 12-13.2 During
his subsequent incarceration at Menard, Nurse Practitioner Moldenhauer prescribed him a 60-day
supply of Tylenol (500 mg) on April 6, 2023. He never received it. N.P. Moldenhauer was aware
Plaintiff also needed Robaxin or Naproxen but failed to prescribe either medication. Id.
From mid-April 2023 until mid-October 2023, Plaintiff made daily complaints about the
denial of this medication to Warden Willis, N.P. Moldenhauer, Nurse Dolce, Nurse Amanda,
Nurse Jane Doe 1, Nurse Jane Doe 2, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Id. at 14. Plaintiff sent
grievances to Grievance Officer Kelly Pierce. 	He also submitted an emergency grievance to
Warden Willis on July 7, 2023. The defendants knew, or should have known, there was no system
for tracking inmate medications. Id. at 14-15. Even so, they took no steps to address the issue.
Plaintiff did not receive medication until mid-August, when he was given Naproxen. Id.
Plaintiff noticed that working fire alarms, smoke detectors, and sprinklers were missing
from inmate cells and living areas in Menard’s North 2 Segregation Unit on or around February 9,
2023. 	Id. at 17. 	IDOC Director Hughes, Warden Willis, Grievance Officer Pierce, Grievance
Officer Guetersloh, Sergeant John Doe 1, Lieutenant John Doe 2, Lieutenant John Doe 3, C/O
John Doe 4, and C/O John Doe 5 all knew, or should have known, that this posed an obvious risk
of serious harm to inmates, but they took no steps to install fire alarms, smoke detectors, or
sprinklers. Id. at 18.
2 Plaintiff does not describe his injuries or the care they necessitated.
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
On November 21, 2023, an inmate set fire to himself and his cell around 6:20 p.m. in
3 Gallery of Menard’s North 2 Segregation Unit. Id. at 19. At the time, Plaintiff was asleep in
Cell 338 of 3 Gallery. As he continued to sleep, Plaintiff’s cell began filling with toxic smoke.
Around 7 p.m., he awoke and discovered his cell filled with suffocating and toxic smoke. Plaintiff
began vomiting until he lost consciousness. 	For more than an hour after the fire was put out,
Defendants John Doe 1-5 left the inmates in their cells. Around 9 or 9:30 p.m., Defendants Warden
Willis, John Doe 1-5, and Nurse Morgan refused Plaintiff’s request for medical care for his smoke-
related injuries. Id. at 20. Nurse Morgan admitted that she was only there to “cover the officers
(sic) asses” and said that nobody would receive medical attention unless someone died and a doctor
“ha[d] to call it (death).” Id.
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court designates the following claims in the pro se
Complaint:
Count 1: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Wexford, Willis, Pierce,
Moldenhauer, Dolce, Amanda, Nurse Doe 1, and Nurse Doe 2 for denying
Plaintiff pain relievers (Tylenol, Naproxen, and Robaxin) from April 2023
until August 2023.
Count 2: 	Monell claim against Defendants for the policy, custom, or practice of
failing to track inmate medication, resulting in a denial of Plaintiff’s access
to pain relievers (Tylenol, Naproxen, and Robaxin) from April 2023 until
August 2023.
Count 3: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Hughes, Willis, Pierce,
Guetersloh, Sergeant Doe 1, Lieutenant Doe 2, Lieutenant Doe 3, C/O Doe
4, and C/O Doe 5 for subjecting Plaintiff to unsafe living conditions in
Menard’s North 2 Segregation Unit by failing to install working fire alarms,
smoke detectors, or sprinklers in inmate cells and living areas and causing
his exposure to toxic smoke during a fire on November 21, 2023.
Count 4: 	Monell claim against Defendants for the policy, custom, or practice of
failing to ensure that working fire alarms, smoke detectors, and sprinklers
were placed near inmate living areas in Menard’s North 2 Segregation Unit
resulting in Plaintiff’s exposure to smoke on November 21, 2023.
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
Count 5: 	Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Sergeant Doe 1, Lieutenant
Doe 2, Lieutenant Doe 3, C/O Doe 4, and C/O Doe 5 and Warden Willis,
for denying Plaintiff’s request for treatment of smoke-related injuries
following a fire in Menard’s North 2 Segregation Unit on November 21,
2023.
Any other claim mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pled under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007) (action fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face”).
Preliminary Dismissals
Although Nurse Morgan is mentioned in the statement of claim, Plaintiff does not identify
this individual as a defendant in the Complaint. Therefore, the Court will not treat Nurse Morgan
as a party. All claims against Nurse Morgan are considered dismissed without prejudice. See FED.
R. C IV. P. 10(a) (noting that the title of the complaint “must name all the parties”).
The Illinois Department of Corrections and Menard Correctional Center are also named as
defendants in the Complaint. 	Neither entity is considered a “person” subject to suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012). 	Additionally, these
agencies cannot be sued for prospective relief in federal court. Quick v. Ill. Dep’t of Fin. & Prof’l
Regulation, 468 F. Supp. 3d 1001, 1009 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2020) (collecting cases). Thus, The
Illinois Department of Corrections and Menard Correctional Center will be dismissed with
prejudice.
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 4 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
Discussion
Count 1
To state a claim for the denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment,
Plaintiff must plead facts suggesting he suffered from an objectively serious medical need and that
each defendant responded with deliberate indifference. Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857 (7th Cir.
2011). 	An objectively serious medical condition involves chronic or substantial pain or
significantly impacts a plaintiff’s daily activities. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th
Cir. 1997); Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010). Deliberate indifference is shown
by a defendant who knowingly disregards a serious medical condition or persists in a course of
treatment known to be ineffective. Conley v. Birch, 796 F.3d 742, 747 (7th Cir. 2015).
The Complaint does not describe an objectively serious medical need. 	Plaintiff vaguely
alludes to a back injury he sustained in a stabbing incident in 2008 or 2009. 	He offers no
information about the nature of his initial injuries or any treatment he received. 	Nor does he
provide any details about lingering injuries, ongoing pain, or additional treatment he needed 15
years later. Absent this information, Plaintiff’s complaint about a 4-month denial of pain relievers
in 2023 does not satisfy the objective component of his Eighth Amendment claim. As such, Count
1 will be dismissed without prejudice.
Count 2
The Monell claim asserted in Count 2 arises from the same set of facts that support Count
1. Because Plaintiff failed to articulate a viable claim in Count 1, his related policy claim in Count
2 will also be dismissed without prejudice.
Count 3
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they exhibit deliberate indifference to
conditions of confinement that deny inmates “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,”
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 5 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

6
including adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
834 (1994). To state a colorable claim, a plaintiff must set forth factual allegations suggesting that
each defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm posed by the
constitutionally objectionable living condition. Id. at 847.
Here, Plaintiff complains about a lack of working fire alarms, smoke detectors, and
sprinklers. 	He does not indicate who was responsible for installing or maintaining them and
whether he notified the responsible individual(s) about any broken, malfunctioning, or missing
devices in Menard’s North 2 Segregation Unit. He asserts only that he noticed them prior to the
fire and lists prison officials who “knew or should have known” about them. His allegations are
conclusory and at most describe negligence, which does not rise to the level of an Eighth
Amendment violation.
Moreover, §1983 liability hinges on personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation.
Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005). 	A “causal connection” or
“affirmative link” between the misconduct and the official sued is necessary. Rizzo v. Goode, 423
U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Plaintiff has shown no connection between the defendants and the failure
to install and maintain functioning first alarms, smoke detectors, or sprinklers. 	Count 3 will be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim about exposure to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement.
Count 4
The Monell claim asserted in Count 4 hinges on the underlying Eighth Amendment claim
in Count 3. 	Because the allegations articulate no underlying claim, Count 4 will be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 6 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

7
Count 5
Plaintiff states a colorable an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Sergeant Doe 1, Lieutenant Doe 2, Lieutenant Doe 3, C/O Doe 4, and C/O Doe 5 and Warden
Willis for allegedly ignoring Plaintiff for an hour after the fire and then denying him medical care
for objectively serious smoke-related injuries on November 21, 2023. 	Therefore, Count 5 will
proceed against these individual defendants.
Identification of Unknown Defendants
Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed with his claim in Count 5 against Sergeant John Doe
1, Lieutenant John Doe 2, Lieutenant John Doe 3, C/O John Doe 4, and C/O John Doe 5. However,
he must identify these defendants with particularity, so they can be served with this lawsuit.
Plaintiff will have the opportunity to engage in limited discovery to ascertain the identity of these
individuals. 	Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009). 	The
Current Warden of Menard Correctional Center will be added as a defendant, in an official capacity
only, for purposes of responding to discovery aimed at identifying them. 	Once their names are
discovered, Plaintiff must file a motion to substitute the newly identified defendants in place of
each unknown defendant.
Disposition
The Complaint (Doc. 1) survives preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	The
following claims and/or parties will proceed past screening:
• 	COUNT 5 will proceed against SERGEANT JOHN DOE 1, LIEUTENANT
JOHN DOE 2, LIEUTENANT JOHN DOE 3, C/O JOHN DOE 4, C/O JOHN
DOE 5, and WARDEN ANTHONY WILLIS, in their individual capacities.
• 	The CURRENT WARDEN 	OF MENARD 	CORRECTIONAL CENTER
(official capacity) is ADDED as a defendant for purposes of identifying the
unknown defendants according to the Doe Identification Order that will be entered
and for implementing any injunctive relief ordered in this case.
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 7 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

8
However, COUNTS 1, 2, 3, and 4 are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state
a claim against any defendants.
Defendants 	ILLINOIS 	DEPARTMENT 	OF 	CORRECTIONS 	and 	MENARD
CORRECTIONAL CENTER are DISMISSED with prejudice, and Defendants LATOYA
HUGHES, 	WEXFORD 	HEALTH 	SOURCES, 	INC., 	KELLEY 	PIERCE, 	JACOB
GUETERSLOH, N.P. MOLDENHAUER, CONNIE DOLCE, NURSE AMANDA, NURSE
JANE DOE 1, and NURSE JANE DOE 2 are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The pending Motion for Status (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED as MOOT.
With respect to COUNT 5, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants CURRENT
WARDEN 	OF 	MENARD 	CORRECTIONAL 	CENTER, 	in 	an 	official 	capacity 	only,
WARDEN 	ANTHONY 	WILLIS, 	and, 	once 	identified, 	SERGEANT 	JOHN 	DOE 	1,
LIEUTENANT JOHN DOE 2, LIEUTENANT JOHN DOE 3, C/O JOHN DOE 4, and C/O
JOHN DOE 5, in their individual capacities: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to
Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint (Doc. 1), and this Memorandum and
Order to each Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to
sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the
date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that
Defendant, and the Court will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the
extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If a Defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with that Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, the
last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed above
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 8 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

9
or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the
Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244 and Local Rule 8.2, Defendants need only
respond to the issues stated in this Merits Review Order. The Current Warden need only
appear in this matter.
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk
of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 14 days
after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution. See FED. R. C IV. P. 41(b).
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to ADD the CURRENT WARDEN OF MENARD
CORRECTIONAL CENTER (official capacity only) as a defendant in CM/ECF and
TERMINATE all Defendants, except Warden Anthony Willis and John Doe 1-5, as parties
in CM/ECF.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 1, 2025
s/ Staci M. Yandle
Staci M. Yandle
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 9 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>

10
Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your lawsuit
and serve them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendants
will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. 	It will likely take at least
60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely possible
that it will take 90 days or more. When all the defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter
a Scheduling Order containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures.
Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions,
to give the defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need
not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically directed to do so.
Case 3:25-cv-00423-SMY Document 14 Filed 12/01/25 Page 10 of 10 Page ID
#<pageID>