Jefferson v. Lochard

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RUFIS A. JEFFERSON, #87491-510,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. HUGHES LOCHARD,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-cv-01845-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for preliminary review of Plaintiff Rufis Jefferson’s
Amended Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff alleges that he was
denied adequate medical care for Crohn’s Disease during his detention at Jefferson County Jail.
He seeks monetary relief. Id. The Amended Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, which requires the Court to review prisoner complaints and filter out any portion that is
legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an
immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a)-(b).
Amended Complaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Amended Complaint (Doc. 9, pp. 5-7):
During his detention at Jefferson County Jail, Plaintiff informed Dr. Hughes Lochard about his
diagnosis with Crohn’s Disease on or around November 20, 2023. Plaintiff told the doctor that he
needed to see a gastroenterologist about a flare-up that was causing pain. Rather than referring
him to a specialist, Dr. Lochard prescribed two rounds of steroids. 	The medication provided
temporary relief but did not treat his underlying condition. Id.
Case 3:25-cv-01845-JPG Document 13 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
Due to the lack of treatment, Plaintiff’s condition worsened. 	His intestines thickened until
they became deformed. 	Plaintiff wrote several grievances to describe the loss of appetite and
unbearable pain caused by his bulging intestines. 	He again requested treatment with a
gastroenterologist. 	Dr. Lochard had access to Plaintiff’s medical records and could confirm his
diagnosis. 	However, the doctor instead told Plaintiff did not have Crohn’s Disease and his
symptoms were caused by depression. The doctor prescribed psychotropic medication, which did
not help. Id.
Sometime in or around 2025, Plaintiff was finally sent to a gastroenterologist for a
colonoscopy. The specialist informed Plaintiff that his intestines were so deformed that she could
not understand how he had survived without treatment. 	As a result of his delayed treatment,
Plaintiff’s condition deteriorated to the point that he now requires a scope every six months and a
periodic shot in his stomach for the rest of his life. 	In addition, Plaintiff does not qualify for
placement in a halfway house because he is on a “medical hold” for Crohn’s Disease at his federal
facility. Id.
Based on the allegations summarized herein, the Court designates the following claim in
the pro se Amended Complaint:
Count 1: 	Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Dr. Lochard for delaying
or denying Plaintiff medical treatment for Crohn’s Disease at Jefferson
County Jail beginning November 20, 2023.
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.
Discussion
The applicable legal standard for Plaintiff’s claim depends on his legal status when the
claim arose. The Fourteenth Amendment controls claims brought by a pretrial detainee. McCann
Case 3:25-cv-01845-JPG Document 13 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
v. Ogle Cty., Ill., 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018). To survive screening under the Fourteenth
Amendment, Plaintiff must set forth allegations suggesting that the defendant acted purposefully,
knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly in connection with his medical treatment, and the
challenged conduct was objectively unreasonable. Id. at 886. When deciding whether the alleged
misconduct was objectively unreasonable, the Court considers “the totality of the facts and
circumstances faced by the individual alleged to have provided inadequate medical care.” Id.
The Eighth Amendment governs claims of inadequate medical care brought by a convicted
person. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). To survive screening under the Eighth
Amendment, Plaintiff must set forth allegations showing that (a) he suffered from an objectively
serious medical need; (b) the defendant knew of the serious medical need and exhibited deliberate
indifference to it; and (c) the plaintiff was injured. Stockton v. Milwaukee Cnty., 44 F.4th 605, 614
(7th Cir. 2022). An objectively serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician
as requiring treatment or one where the need for treatment would be obvious to a lay person.
Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522
(7th Cir. 2008)). Deliberate indifference occurs where a defendant “know[s] of and disregard[s]
an excessive risk to inmate health.” Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005).
Count 1 survives screening under both standards, and the parties can determine which legal
standard applies as the case proceeds against Dr. Hughes Lochard.
Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) survives screening. COUNT 1
will proceed against DR. HUGHES LOCHARD in his individual capacity.
Case 3:25-cv-01845-JPG Document 13 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER the standard qualified protective order
pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
IT IS ORDERED that as to COUNT 1, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant
DR. HUGHES LOCHARD: (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 Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), and this Memorandum and Order to
Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If 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 Defendant, and the
Court will require Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If Defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the employer
shall furnish the Clerk with Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, Defendant’s last-
known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed above 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.
Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the Amended
Complaint (Doc. 9) and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant
to Administrative Order No. 244 and Rule 8.2, Defendant need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merits Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, whether or not
his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Case 3:25-cv-01845-JPG Document 13 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 3/18/2026
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01845-JPG Document 13 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

6
Notice
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendant of your lawsuit
and serve him with a copy of your Amended Complaint. 	After service has been achieved, the
defendant will enter an appearance and file an Answer to your Amended Complaint. It will likely
take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendant’s Answer, but it is entirely
possible that it will take 90 days or more. The Court will then 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, in order to give Defendant
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before Defendant’s counsel
files an appearance will generally be denied as premature. 	The plaintiff need not submit any
evidence to the court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.
Case 3:25-cv-01845-JPG Document 13 Filed 03/18/26 Page 6 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>