Johnson v. Doe 2

Filing 10

Order for Service of Process upon Anthony Wills (official capacity only). Count 1 shall proceed against Jane Doe #2. Anthony Wills is added to the case in his official capacity only to respond to discovery aimed at identifying the Jane Doe. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/29/2024. (anp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LARRY D. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 24-cv-1806-NJR

JANE DOE #2,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Larry D. Johnson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is
currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was severed from Johnson’s claims in
Johnson v. Sadler, et al., Case No. 24-cv-1385-DWD (Doc. 1). Johnson has now indicated his
intention to proceed on the severed claim (Doc. 7), and the case is now before the Court for
preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is
immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Complaint
The following claim was severed into this case and has been renumbered:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Jane
Doe #2 for refusing to further investigate Johnson’s chest pain in
November of 2023 and February of 2024.

(Doc. 1, p. 6).

1

In his Complaint, Johnson alleges that he had EKGs after he complained of extreme chest
pains (Doc. 1, p. 4). Specifcially, Jane Doe #2 conducted EKGs on November 24, 2023, and
February 1, 2024, after Johnson was pulled out of his cell for a medical emergency (Doc. 2, p. 12).
After one of the tests, Jane Doe #2 told Johnson that she did not know what plagued him, but it
was not his chest. Jane Doe #2 did not conduct any further investigation into his medical
condition (Doc. 1, p. 4). Johnson continues to suffer from severe pain in his neck, chest, right
shoulder, arm, hand and back (Id.).
Discussion
At this stage, Johnson states a viable claim against Jane Doe #2 for her deliberate
indifference to his chest pains. To help identify Jane Doe #2, the Court ADDS Warden Anthony
Wills, in his official capacity only, to respond to discovery aimed at identifying the Jane Doe.
In addition to his Complaint, Johnson indicates in his response (Doc. 7) that his claim
against Jane Doe #2 was related to his excessive force and deliberate indifference claims in his
original case (See Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). He alleges that his chest pain was the result of the injuries he
sustained in the alleged assault by guards. See Case No. 24-cv-1385-DWD (Counts 1 and 2). He
also alleges that his attempts to obtain care from Jane Doe #2 was part of a series of occurrences
seeking care for his injuries. Johnson’s Complaint, however, fails to connect his treatment by Jane
Doe #2 with his claims of excessive force. Further, Judge Dugan noted that even if a claim is
eligible for joinder, the Court still possesses the discretion to separate claims into distinct lawsuits
(Doc. 1, p. 11). See also Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1103 (7th Cir. 2022). Here, severing Johnson’s
claim against Jane Doe #2 was proper because the claim involved care provided by a different
defendant at a different time. To the extent that Johnson now requests to join his claim against
Jane Doe #2 with his previous claims, his request is DENIED.

2

Johnson also argues in his response (Doc. 7) that Wexford Health Sources, Inc., was
improperly dismissed in the original case (See Doc. 1, p. 6). Wexford was dismissed because
Johnson merely alleged that the company was liable as the employer of Jane Doe #2 (Id.). Wexford
can only be liable, however, if a constitutional violation was caused by a policy, practice, or
custom of the corporation. See Shields v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 746 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2014). In
his response, Johnson argues that the dismissal was inappropriate because he alleged that his
inadequate care was caused by a policy of Wexford. Johnson points to Paragraph 20 in his
Complaint which alleges that Wexford “and their staff are running a lawless environmental
system and practices adopted by all parties involved” (Doc. 2, p. 15). But Johnson’s pleading fails
to point to a specific policy or practice of Wexford that led to his denial of care; instead, he states
only in conclusory fashion that Wexford has lawless practices. His allegations are simply too
vague to state a claim against Wexford.
In his response, Johnson alleges that Wexford has a policy of allowing security, rather
than medical staff, to dictate what medical treatment is provided to an inmate (Doc. 7, p. 2). But
Johnson failed to include this allegation in the original pleading, and the Court does not accept
piecemeal amendments to the Complaint. Further, Johnson fails to allege how this policy led to
the denial of care in this case. He acknowledges that he was transported from his cell by security
and received an EKG (Doc. 2, p. 12). To the extent that Johnson wishes to re-allege a claim against
Wexford, he would have to file an Amended Complaint.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Jane Doe #2. Anthony Wills
is ADDED in his official capacity only to help identify the Jane Doe.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant Anthony Wills (official capacity only):
(1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons) and (2) Form 6
3

(Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the
Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to the defendant’s place of employment as
identified by Johnson. If the 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 the 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 the defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Johnson, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the 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
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g). Pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit
Review Order. Because Anthony Wills is in the case for the sole purpose of responding to
discovery aimed at identifying the Jane Doe, he does not need to file a formal Answer. Once he
has entered his appearance, the Court will enter a scheduling order setting forth specific
guidelines and parameters for discovery regarding the Jane Doe.
If judgment is rendered against Johnson, and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under Section 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, regardless of whether
his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

4

Finally, Johnson 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. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2024
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

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.

5