McFadden v. Wexford Health Sources Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LAVARIUS K. MCFADDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
JANE DOE RN NURSE, JOHN DOE NP
NURSE, and JOHN DOE MD,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-1760-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff 	Lavarius 	K. 	McFadden, 	an 	inmate 	of 	the 	Illinois 	Department 	of
Corrections who is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. McFadden’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and
Amended Complaint (Doc. 19), both alleging deliberate indifference in the treatment of
his tonsils, were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim (Docs. 11, 23).
McFadden was granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 23). In his
Second Amended Complaint, he again alleges that medical providers at Menard were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Since the filing of his Second Amended Complaint, McFadden has filed two
“exhibits” (Docs. 28, 29). These filings seek to explain his current condition and provide
medical records. McFadden also filed an additional statement which the Court labeled as
Case 3:25-cv-01760-NJR Document 31 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
a motion to amend (Doc. 30). McFadden alleges that since his tonsillectomy he has
developed an upper respiratory infection that his current medications have failed to treat.
McFadden inquires as to whether he can add an additional claim for his current care. To
the extent McFadden seeks to add additional claims or exhibits, his requests are denied
because the Court does not accept piecemeal amendments to the pleading. And, to the
extent that McFadden takes issue with his current treatment at Pontiac, those potential
claims would involve different defendants and are factually unrelated to the claims in his
current lawsuit. He would need to file a new lawsuit to pursue those claims.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Second Amended
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 Second Amended Complaint
On August 7, 2024, McFadden spoke to an unnamed LPN about issues with his
tonsils (Doc. 27, p. 6). McFadden contends that by May 2025, he had recurring acute
tonsillitis that had become increasingly painful (Id.). On May 29, 2025, he spoke to Jane
Doe RN Nurse (McFadden identifies this nurse by the initials M.B.) about complications
with his throat, including severe pain and bleeding (Id.). He alleges that he received little
to no medical treatment in response to his complaints but acknowledges that the Jane
Doe Nurse (M.B.) referred him to the doctor (Id. at pp. 6-7).
Case 3:25-cv-01760-NJR Document 31 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
On June 12, 2025, he spoke to a John Doe nurse practitioner about his tonsils. 1 The
nurse practitioner prescribed Claritin and referred him to an ENT (Doc. 27, p. 7). On July
10, 2025, he was scheduled for an ENT evaluation. On July 17, 2025, he spoke to another
nurse and she noted that he was scheduled for an ENT evaluation (Id.). On August 12,
2025, McFadden was sent out to the ENT and met with Drs. Joshue Hentzelman and
Joseph Kleinsmith, who performed an endoscopy (Id.). They determined that McFadden
needed a tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy to treat his recurrent tonsillitis (Id.). They
ordered a CT scan prior to surgery.
On August 20, 2025, McFadden met with John Doe MD (who McFadden identifies
by his initials (J.R.). Dr. John Doe (J.R.) informed McFadden that “IDOC” would not pay
for the tonsillectomy nor send inmates out for that type of surgery. Dr. John Doe (J.R.)
also indicated that McFadden would not be sent out for surgery because there was no
medical procedure that would alleviate his tonsillitis (Id.).
On September 1, 2025, McFadden met with an unknown nurse about his tonsillitis;
she prescribed him Guafensin and referred him to the medical doctor (Doc. 27, p. 8). On
September 12, McFadden saw Jane Doe Nurse (M.B.) about his tonsils (Id.). He alleges
that she provided “little to no medical treatment.” (Id.).
On October 14, 2025, McFadden transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center
(Doc. 27, p. 8). Shortly after arriving, McFadden complained to a nurse about his tonsils,
1 McFadden’s statement of claim identifies this individual as a “doe nurse,” but in describing each
defendant, McFadden indicates that he saw the John Doe Nurse Practitioner on June 12, 2025, the
same date as the “doe nurse” (Doc. 27, p. 2).
Case 3:25-cv-01760-NJR Document 31 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
and he was scheduled to see a nurse practitioner. He was ultimately seen by several
providers at Pontiac and referred to an ENT. McFadden indicates that he had a
tonsillectomy on April 27, 2026 (Id.). He alleges that defendants at Menard had no
intention of ever allowing him to have proper treatment for his condition. As a result of
their lack of action, McFadden alleges that he developed a kidney and urinary infection.
He fails to indicate when he developed this infection. He also claims permanent injury to
his voice.
Preliminary Dismissals
McFadden identifies Wexford Health Sources, Inc. as a defendant in the case
caption but fails to include any allegations against the company in his statement of claim.
He merely alleges that Dr. John Doe told him that “IDOC” would not pay for his surgery
(Doc. 27, p. 7). Wexford can only be liable for deliberate indifference if the company had
a policy or practice that caused the constitutional violation. Iskander v. Vill. of Forest Park,
690 F.2d 126, 128 (7th Cir. 1982) (applying municipal liability to private corporations
performing governmental functions); McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 324 (7th
Cir. 2000). McFadden fails to point to any policy or practice of Wexford that led to the
denial of his surgery. Thus, any potential claim against Wexford is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, the Court designates
the following count:
Case 3:25-cv-01760-NJR Document 31 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
Count 1: 	Eighth 	Amendment 	deliberate 	indifference 	to 	medical
needs claim against Jane Doe Nurse (M.B.), John Doe Nurse
Practitioner, and Dr. John Doe (J.R) for denying McFadden
medical care for his tonsillitis.
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders,
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is
mentioned in the Second Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order should
be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly
pleading standard. 2
To successfully state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to
medical needs, a plaintiff must plead that he suffered from “an objectively serious
medical condition” and that a “state official was deliberately… indifferent” to that
condition. See Giles v. Godinez, 914 F. 3d 1040, 1049 (7th Cir. 2019). A plaintiff must
demonstrate 	that 	the 	defendants’ 	actions 	were 	more 	than 	negligent, 	something
approaching intentional wrongdoing or recklessness. Holloway v. Delaware Cnty. Sheriff,
700 F.3d 1063, 1073 (7th Cir. 2012). Further, a plaintiff must demonstrate that each
defendant had knowledge of his condition and was personally involved in his care. Burks
v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 2009).
McFadden fails to state a claim against either the Nurse Practitioner or the Jane
Doe Nurse (M.B.). He alleges that he saw the nurse practitioner on one occasion, and he
prescribed Claritin for McFadden’s symptoms and referred him to the ENT (Doc. 27, p. 7).
2 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face”).
Case 3:25-cv-01760-NJR Document 31 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

6
Such actions do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Similarly, he saw Jane Doe
Nurse (M.B.) on May 29, 2025, and she referred him to the doctor (Id. at pp. 6-7). And as
McFadden notes, he saw the nurse practitioner shortly thereafter on June 12. He also saw
Jane Doe Nurse (M.B.) on another occasion on September 12, 2025 (Id. at p. 8). Although
McFadden alleges that on this occasion the nurse provided him with “little to no medical
treatment,” McFadden provides limited allegations about this interaction. He only notes
that he again complained about tonsil complications. There are no allegations to indicate
exactly what he told the nurse or her response, if any. He acknowledges that she again
referred him to the medical doctor (Id. at p. 8). There are simply no allegations to suggest
that she acted with deliberate indifference. Thus, Count 1 is DISMISSED as to Jane Doe
Nurse (M.B.) and John Doe Nurse Practitioner.
But McFadden does state a viable claim for deliberate indifference against Dr. John
Doe (J.R.). McFadden alleges that despite the ENTs recommending surgery and ordering
additional testing, Dr. John Doe denied the request for surgery because IDOC would not
pay for it and stated the surgery would not alleviate McFadden’s conditions. His actions
could amount to deliberate indifference. Thus, Count 1 shall proceed against Dr. John
Doe (J.R.). The Court ADDS the current warden of Menard, Matthew Plummer (official
capacity only), to respond to discovery aimed at identifying Dr. John Doe.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Dr. John Doe (J.R.).
Matthew Plummer is ADDED to the case, in his official capacity only, in order to help
identify the John Doe.
Case 3:25-cv-01760-NJR Document 31 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

7
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Matthew Plummer (official capacity only):
(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 Second Amended Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to
Plummer at Menard. If Plummer 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 him, and the Court will
require him to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Because Matthew Plummer is in the case only to respond to discovery regarding
the identity of the defendant doctor, he does not need to file an Answer. Once he has
entered his appearance, the Court will enter a scheduling order setting forth discovery
deadlines for identifying Dr. John Doe.
Because McFadden’s claims involve his medical care, the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to enter the Court’s standard HIPAA Qualified Protective Order.
If judgment is rendered against McFadden, 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).
Finally, McFadden 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
Case 3:25-cv-01760-NJR Document 31 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

8
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 F ED. R. C IV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 9, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States 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 Second Amended Complaint. After
service has been achieved, the defendants will enter their 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 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-01760-NJR Document 31 Filed 10/09/26 Page 8 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>