Powell v. Wexford Health Sources Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTIAN T. POWELL, #B86427, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 25-cv-01696-SMY
)
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., 	)
JOHN DOE 1 (Health Serv. Adm’r.), 	)
JOHN DOE 2 (Med. Grievances), 	)
JOHN DOE 3 (Dr./ Nurse Practitioner), and )
JOHN DOE 4 (Med. Furlough Coord.), 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Christian T. Powell, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)
currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. He claims defendants were
deliberately indifferent to multiple serious medical conditions during his incarceration at Menard
Correctional Center and seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 1).
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious
claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Court requires a plaintiff to fully and accurately disclose his litigation history in the
Complaint. 	To that end, the Court’s Complaint form directed Plaintiff to describe each of his
previous lawsuits, “including those that resulted in the assessment of a ‘strike’ under 28 U.S.C.
Case 3:25-cv-01696-SMY Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
§ 1915(g).” 	(Doc. 1, p. 3). 	He was also warned, “FAILURE TO FULLY DISCLOSE YOUR
LITIGATION HISTORY, INCLUDING ‘STRIKES,’ MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS THAT
INCLUDE DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION.” Id.
Plaintiff appears to have listed his prior lawsuits. However, he falsely claimed Powell v.
Wills, Case No. 23-cv-1644-GCS (S.D. Ill. dismissed Feb. 27, 2024) was “dismissed for not stating
a claim, but NO strike.” (Doc. 1, p. 4). To the contrary, this Court clearly informed Plaintiff the
dismissal of No. 23-cv-1644 resulted in a “strike:”
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to
state a claim. The dismissal counts as one of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes”
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Powell v. Wills, Case No. 23-cv-1644-GCS (S.D. Ill., Feb. 27, 2024) (Memorandum and Order
dismissing case, Doc. 14).
The Court relies on a party’s litigation history listed in the Complaint to adhere to the three-
strike requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As such, reliable information about prior lawsuits is
necessary. 	If a party fails to provide accurate litigation history, the Court may appropriately
dismiss the action for providing fraudulent information to the Court. Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d
541, 543 (7th Cir. 2011) (dismissal appropriate where Court-issued complaint form clearly warned
Plaintiff that failure to provide litigation history would result in dismissal); see also Payton v.
Kram, No. 22-2212, 2024 WL 123453, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2024) (court can take judicial notice
of plaintiff’s prior cases). Here, Plaintiff falsified his litigation history, claiming a dismissal was
not a strike when in fact it was. Therefore, the Court concludes that dismissal of this action is an
appropriate sanction.
Disposition
This case is DISMISSED with prejudice because Plaintiff falsified his litigation history.
Case 3:25-cv-01696-SMY Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
The Court does not count the dismissal of this case as a “strike.” 	The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, his notice of appeal must be filed with this Court
within thirty days of the entry of judgment. 	F ED. R. APP . P. 4(a)(1)(A). 	A proper and timely
motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline.
FED. R. APP . P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than twenty-eight (28) days
after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended. If the appeal is found
to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur another “strike.”
A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) must set forth the issues Plaintiff
plans to present on appeal. See FED. R. APP . P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he
will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See
FED. R. APP . P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir.
2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464,
467 (7th Cir. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2026
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01696-SMY Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>