govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_25-cv-02088-0

Page 1 of 8 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
 
ROBERT GILL, 
 
                    P l a i n t i f f ,  
 
v. 
 
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES INC., 
 
                    D e f e n d a n t .  
 
 
 
 
Case No. 25-cv-02088-MAB 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge: 
 Plaintiff Robert Gill, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of 
Corrections (IDOC) who is currently incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center, brings 
this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. The 
Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 
Pursuant to Section 1915A,the Cout must screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-
meritorious claims and dismiss any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, 
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money 
damages from a defendant who by law is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 
THE COMPLAINT 
 Plaintiff alleges that on March 16, 2022, while he was at Shawnee Correctional 
Center (Shawnee), Dr. Burrell, a dentist, extracted three of his teeth. (Doc. 1, p. 7). On June 
 
1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen the Complaint in light of Plaintiff’s consent to the full jurisdiction of 
a magistrate judge and Wexford’s limited consent to th e exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set 
forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between Wexford and this Court.  
Case 3:25-cv-02088-MAB     Document 11     Filed 05/04/26     Page 1 of 8     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 2 of 8 
 
3, 2022, Dr. Burrell extracted Plaintiff’s remaining six upper teeth. Dr. Burrell told Plaintiff 
that he would make dental impressions for dentures within the next two months. 
However, Dr. Burrell passed away before making the dental impressions. On January 10, 
2023, Dr. Sandhu, a temporary dentist, extracte d Plaintiff’s three remaining lower teeth. 
Dr. Sandhu told Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be fitted for impressions for dentures within 
thirty days. (Id.). 
 In February 2023, when Plaintiff did not re ceive a dental pass to have his dental 
impressions made, he began submitting request slips to be seen by the dentist. (Doc. 1, p. 
7). On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed Grievanc e #2023-3-64 complaining about the lack of 
dental treatment and his need for dentures so that he could eat properly. At this time, 
Plaintiff was experiencing problems eating , and his gums were swelling and becoming 
sore. (Id.). 
 On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff was seen by  a different dentist, who looked at 
Plaintiff’s gums and told Plaintiff that he was ready for dental impressions. (Doc. 1, p. 7). 
On April 13, 2023, Zack Love, a staff member, responded to Grievance #2023-3-64 stating 
that Shawnee did not have a dentist. Plaintiff submitted the grievance to the grievance 
officer, along with information that not having dentures was now impacting his quality 
of life. Plaintiff explained that he could not eat regular food. He also described having 
pain and that his gums would swell and bleed when eating. (Id.). 
 Because he was having difficulties ea ting, Plaintiff began buying commissary 
items that he could trade with other inmates for food items that were moist enough for 
him to eat. (Doc. 1, p. 8).  
Case 3:25-cv-02088-MAB     Document 11     Filed 05/04/26     Page 2 of 8     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 3 of 8 
 
On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff sent a re quest to Bob Allard, who worked in 
clinical services, inquiring about the status of his grievance. (Doc. 1, p. 8).    
On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed Grie vance #2023-10-127 complaining that he 
had not received a response from the grievance officer for Grievance #2023-3-64. (Doc. 1, 
p. 8). On October 13, 2023, Counselor Houseman informed Plaintiff via a written response 
that Grievance #203-3-64 was responded to on April 13, 2023, by Zack Love, but 
Houseman did not explain why Plaintiff had not yet received a response from the 
grievance officer. Plaintiff never received  a response from a grievance officer for 
Grievance #2023-3-64. (Id.).  
Plaintiff continued to submit request slips to see a dentist to be fitted for dentures, 
and he continued to struggle to eat with swollen and bleeding gums. (Doc. 1, p. 8).   
On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff was transferred to Centralia Correctional Center 
(Centralia). (Doc. 1, p. 8). Up on his arrival, he began submitting request slips to be seen 
by a dentist so that he could be fitted for dentures. ( Id.). Centralia also did not have a 
dentist. (Id. at p. 9). On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff had an appointment with the dentist, Dr. 
Ford, and she took impressions for dentures. (Id. at p. 8). While waiting for his dentures, 
Plaintiff continued to send requests to the dentist complaining about the pain he 
experienced while eating without dentures. (Id.). Plaintiff finally received dentures eight 
months later on June 16, 2025. (Id. at p. 9).  
Plaintiff asserts that Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Wexford) has a practice of 
understaffing the healthcare unit and failing to fill vacancies appropriately. (Doc. 1, p. 9). 
After having his teeth extracted, Plaintiff was housed at two different correctional 
Case 3:25-cv-02088-MAB     Document 11     Filed 05/04/26     Page 3 of 8     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 4 of 8 
 
facilities that did not have a dentist on staff.  Without a dentist, Plaintiff did not receive 
timely care and had to wait over two years to receive dentures. During this time, he had 
difficulty eating and continued to suffer from pain and swollen and bleeding gums. (Id.).   
DISCUSSION 
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations and his articulation of his claims, the Court 
designates the following count: 
Count 1:  Eighth Amendment claim ag ainst Wexford for deliberate 
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.  
 
The parties and the Court will use this desi gnation in all future pleadings and orders, 
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is 
mentioned in the Complaint but not addresse d in this Order should be considered 
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly 2  pleading 
standard. 
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the deli berate indifference  to a prisoner’s 
“serious medical needs,” as deliberate indi fference “constitutes the unnecessary and 
wanton infliction of pain forbidden by the Constitution.” Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance 
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 828 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted) . This indifference 
includes “intentionally denying or delaying  access to medical care or intentionally 
interfering with prescribed treatment.” Id. at 829. Usually, to successfully state an Eighth 
Amendment claim of deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant 
knew of a serious risk of harm and consciously disregarded it. See Giles v. Godinez, 914 F. 
 
2 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).  
Case 3:25-cv-02088-MAB     Document 11     Filed 05/04/26     Page 4 of 8     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 5 of 8 
 
3d 1040, 1049 (7th Cir. 2019). As a corporation, however, Wexford can only be held liable 
for deliberate indifference if it had a policy or  practice that caused the alleged violation 
of a constitutional right. Woodward v. Corr. Med. Serv. of Ill., Inc ., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th 
Cir.2004). See also Jackson v. Ill. Medi–Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760, 766 n. 6 (7th Cir.2002) (private 
corporation is treated as though it were a municipal entity in a Section 1983 action). 
Plaintiff has identified the practice of understaffing on the part of Wexford, 
specifically not having sufficient dental sta ff at Shawnee and Centralia. He alleges that 
insufficient dental personnel resulted in delayed dental appointments and the denial of 
dentures for over two years. In support of this allegation, Plaintiff provides a copy of his 
grievance in which the counselor responded to his complaints that he had not been 
scheduled for dental impressi ons by stating, “Shawnee st ill does not have a dentist.” 
(Doc. 1, p. 10). At this stage, Plaintiff’s a llegations are sufficient for Count 1 to proceed 
against Wexford. See Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593-94 (7th Cir. 2001) (finding that 
the plaintiff had stated a plausible Eighth Amendment claim where the plaintiff suffered 
bleeding, headaches, inability to chew, an d disfigurement when his dentures were 
misplaced).  
DISPOSITION 
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint survives preliminary review pursuant 
to Section 1915A. COUNT 1 shall proceed against Wexford Health Sources, Inc.  
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Wexford the following: (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, and 
Case 3:25-cv-02088-MAB     Document 11     Filed 05/04/26     Page 5 of 8     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 6 of 8 
 
this Memorandum and Order to Defendant’s place of employment as identified by 
Plaintiff. 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 the Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  
If the Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the 
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the De fendant’s current work address, or, if not 
known, his last known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms 
as directed above or for formally effectin g 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. 
Because this suit addresses medical claims, the Clerk of Court is  DIRECTED to 
enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability 
and Accountability Act. 
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. § 1997e(g). Pursuant 
to Local Rule 8.2(b), Defendant should resp ond to the issues stated in this Merit 
Review Order.  
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 
for leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs 
or give security for the same, the applicant and (if applicable) his or her attorney were 
Case 3:25-cv-02088-MAB     Document 11     Filed 05/04/26     Page 6 of 8     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 7 of 8
deemed to have entered into a stipulation that any unpaid costs taxed against the 
applicant shall be paid from any recovery secured in the action.
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: May 4, 2026
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02088-MAB     Document 11     Filed 05/04/26     Page 7 of 8     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 8 of 8 
 
 
 
 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 the complaint. It will 
likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers, 
but it is entirely poss ible that it will take 90 days or more . When all of the defendants 
have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing important 
information on deadlines, disco very, and procedures. Plainti ff 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 otherwise directed by the Court. 
 
Case 3:25-cv-02088-MAB     Document 11     Filed 05/04/26     Page 8 of 8     Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight