IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

JUAN NEELY, )

) 

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2231

)

MICHAEL P. RANDLE, FORMER DIRECTOR )

OF THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS; GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, )

ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE ILLINOIS )

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ROBERTA ) JUDGE MATTHEW KENNELLY

M. FEWS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, )

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS )

OFFICE OF PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT )

SERVICES; MARCUS HARDY, WARDEN OF )

STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; )

ANTHONY RAMOS, FORMER WARDEN OF )

STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER NRC;)

DONALD GAETZ, WARDEN OF )

PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; )

RANDY DAVIS, FORMER WARDEN OF )

PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; )

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; )

DR. PARTHASARATHI GHOSH, MEDICAL )

DIRECTOR OF STATEVILLE )

CORRECTIONAL CENTER; DR. JOHN )

GARDNER, MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF )

PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; )

DR. DARLENE CLARK; DENTAL )

HYGIENIST JAIME SEARBY; UNKNOWN )

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS and UNKNOWN )

MEDICAL PERSONNEL. )

)

Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, JUAN NEELY, by and through his 

attorneys, LOEVY & LOEVY, and complaining of Defendants, MICHAEL 

P. RANDLE, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS; GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE ILLINOIS 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:46
2

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ROBERTA M. FEWS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

ILLINOIS DPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT 

SERVICES; MARCUS HARDY, WARDEN OF STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER; ANTHONY RAMOS, FORMER WARDEN OF STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER; DONALD GAETZ, WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER; RANDY DAVIS, FORMER WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; DR. PARTHASARATHI GHOSH, 

MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER NRC; DR. JOHN 

GARDNER, MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER;

DR. DARLENE CLARK; DENTAL HYGIENIST JAIME SEARBY; UNKNOWN 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS and UNKNOWN MEDICAL PERSONNEL, sued in 

their individual and official capacities (collectively, 

“Defendants”), states as follows:

Introduction

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

Section 1983 to redress the deprivation under color of law of 

Plaintiff's rights as secured by the United States Constitution.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.

3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). On 

information and belief, at least one Defendant resides in this 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:47
3

judicial district, and events giving rise to the claims asserted 

herein occurred within this district.

The Parties

4. Plaintiff Juan Neely is a thirty-seven year-old man 

from Chicago, Illinois. He is currently incarcerated at 

Centralia Correctional Center. At all times relevant to the 

events at issue in this case Plaintiff Neely was incarcerated at 

Pinckneyville and at Stateville Correctional Centers.

5. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Michael P. Randle and Gladyse C. Taylor were

employed by the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) in 

the capacity of Directors of the IDOC. As such, Defendants

Randle and Taylor were acting under color of law.

6. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Randle and Taylor were responsible for the 

organization and supervision of all state-run correctional 

facilities in Illinois, including Pinckneyville Correctional 

Center (“Pinckneyville”) and Stateville Correctional Center 

(“Stateville”).

7. Throughout their tenure as Directors of the IDOC, 

Defendants Randle and Taylor had personal knowledge of the 

deliberately indifferent provision of medical care challenged in 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:48
4

this case, and that such care was being imposed on inmates at 

Pinckneyville and at Stateville, and they implemented, enforced, 

and/or condoned these practices. Defendants Randle and Taylor 

are being sued in their official and individual capacities for 

the challenged provision of medical care.

8. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Roberta M. Fews was employed by the Illinois 

Department of Corrections in the capacity of Deputy Director of 

the Office of Programs and Support Services. As such, Defendant

Fews was acting under color of law.

9. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Fews was responsible, through the Office of 

Health Services, for setting the standards for the delivery of 

inmate heath care and for evaluating the care provided to 

inmates throughout the IDOC, including at Stateville and at 

Pinckneyville. 

10. Throughout her tenure as Deputy Director of the Office

of Programs and Support Services, Defendant Fews had personal 

knowledge of the deliberately indifferent provision of medical 

care challenged in this case, and that such care was being 

imposed on inmates at Pinckneyville and at Stateville, and she 

implemented, enforced, and/or condoned these practices. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:49
5

Defendant Fews is being sued in her official and individual 

capacities for the challenged provision of medical care.

11. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Fews promulgated rules, regulations, policies, 

and procedures as Deputy Director of the Office of Programs and 

Support Services for the provision of certain medical care, 

including medical screening of, and the administration of 

medication to, inmates at Pinckneyville and at Stateville. 

Defendant Fews’ policies were implemented by and through IDOC 

employees including certain individual Defendant medical care 

providers, who were responsible for the medical care of inmates 

at Pinckneyville and at Stateville, including Plaintiff.

12. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Anthony Ramos and Marcus Hardy were employed by 

the Illinois Department of Corrections in the capacity of 

Wardens of Stateville Correctional Center. As such, Defendants

Ramos and Hardy were acting under color of law.

13. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Ramos and Hardy promulgated rules, regulations, 

policies, and procedures as Wardens of Stateville Correctional 

Center for the provision of certain medical care, including 

medical screening of inmates at Stateville and the 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:50
6

administration of medication to inmates at Stateville. 

Defendants Ramos and Hardy’s policies were implemented by and 

through IDOC employees including certain individual Defendant 

medical care providers, who were responsible for the medical 

care of inmates at Stateville, including Plaintiff.

14. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Donald Gaetz and Randy Davis were employed by 

the Illinois Department of Corrections in the capacity of 

Wardens of Pinckneyville Correctional Center. As such, 

Defendants Gaetz and Davis were acting under color of law.

15. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Gaetz and Davis promulgated rules, regulations, 

policies, and procedures as Wardens of Pinckneyville 

Correctional Center for the provision of certain medical care, 

including medical screening of inmates at Pinckneyville and the 

administration of medication to inmates at Pinckneyville. 

Defendant Gaetz and Davis’ policies were implemented by and 

through IDOC employees including certain individual Defendant 

medical care providers, who were responsible for the medical 

care of inmates at Pinckneyville, including Plaintiff.

16. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) was 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:51
7

engaged in the business of providing medical and dental care and 

treatment to inmates, including Plaintiff, at Pinckneyville and 

at Stateville Correctional Centers, and had contracted with the 

IDOC to perform such services. As such, Wexford was acting 

under color of law.

17. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, in its capacity as a contractor to the IDOC, Wexford 

promulgated rules, regulations, policies, and procedures for the 

medical screening, medical treatment, and overall medical care 

of inmates at Pinckneyville and Stateville Correctional Centers, 

including Plaintiff. Wexford policies were implemented by and 

through its employees and the employees of the IDOC, including 

the individual Defendant medical care providers and the 

individual Defendant correctional officers, who were responsible 

for the medical care of inmates at Pinckneyville and at 

Stateville.

18. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Dr. Ghosh and Defendant Unknown Medical 

Personnel were employed by Wexford or the IDOC to provide 

medical services to inmates, including Plaintiff, at Stateville. 

As such, Defendant Dr. Ghosh and Defendant Unknown Medical 

Personnel were acting under color of law.

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:52
8

19. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Dr. Ghosh was one of the treating physicians at 

Stateville and its Medical Director. In his capacity as Medical 

Director, Dr. Ghosh promulgated rules, regulations, policies, 

and procedures for the medical screening, medical treatment, and 

overall medical care of inmates at Stateville Correctional 

Center, including Plaintiff. Dr. Ghosh is being sued in his 

official and individual capacities.

20. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Dr. John Gardner, Defendant Dr. Darlene Clark,

Defendant Dental Hygienist Jaime Searby, and other as-yet

unknown medical personnel were employed by Wexford or the IDOC 

to provide medical services to inmates, including Plaintiff, at 

Pinckneyville. As such, Defendant Dr. John Gardner, Defendant 

Dr. Darlene Clark, Defendant Dental Hygienist Jaime Searby, and 

as-yet unknown medical personnel were acting under color of law.

21. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Dr. Gardner was a dentist at Pinckneyville and 

its Medical Director. In his capacity as Medical Director, Dr. 

Gardner promulgated rules, regulations, policies, and procedures 

for the medical screening, medical treatment, and overall 

medical care of inmates at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:53
9

including Plaintiff. Dr. Gardner is being sued in his official 

and individual capacities.

Factual Allegations

22. On or around April 5, 2010 Plaintiff reported to 

Defendant Dr. John Gardner and other as-yet unknown medical 

personnel at the Pinckneyville Medical Department that he was 

experiencing pain in one of his teeth and that he thought the 

tooth should be extracted.

23. On information and belief, arrangements were 

subsequently made for the extraction of Plaintiff’s tooth, but 

the extraction did not take place. 

24. On or around May 3, 2010 Plaintiff again reported to 

the Pinckneyville Medical Department complaining of the same 

painful tooth. Defendant Dental Hygienist Jaime Searby told 

Plaintiff that she would schedule Plaintiff for a priority 

prophylactic cleaning. Defendant Searby then told Plaintiff 

that he would have to pay a co-payment if he wanted to have the 

prophylactic cleaning done.

25. Plaintiff explained to Defendants Searby and Gardner 

that they were mistaken and that Plaintiff did not have to make 

a co-payment for the cleaning to be done. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:54
10

26. Defendants Searby and Gardner then had Plaintiff 

escorted out of the Medical Department without providing him 

with any treatment or scheduling his priority prophylactic 

cleaning.

27. Defendants Searby and Gardner then placed Plaintiff on 

the “off call” list so that Plaintiff could not return to the 

Medical Department even if Plaintiff felt he needed immediate 

medical attention.

28. Despite his painful tooth, Plaintiff was not allowed 

to return to the Medical Department for almost three months. 

When Plaintiff was finally allowed to return to the Medical 

Department, on information and belief, arrangements were again 

made for his tooth to be extracted.

29. Again, however, the tooth was not extracted, and 

instead, on or around August 12, 2010, Plaintiff was sent to 

Stateville Correctional Center on a state writ.

30. When Plaintiff arrived at Stateville he complained to 

as-yet unknown correctional officers and/or medical personnel

that his tooth was causing him severe pain and that the gums 

around his tooth were bleeding and leaking a pus-like fluid.

31. The as-yet unknown correctional officer and/or medical 

personnel informed Plaintiff that it was Stateville policy not 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:55
11

to provide medical treatment to inmates on state writs and that 

Plaintiff would have to wait until he returned to Pinckneyville 

to have his medical issue resolved.

32. For four days Plaintiff complained to as-yet unknown 

medical personnel and to as-yet unknown corrections officers 

that his tooth was causing him severe pain and that the gums 

around his tooth were bleeding heavily. When Plaintiff was 

finally brought to the Medical Department he was diagnosed with 

a bleeding abscess and an infected tooth. Plaintiff was 

informed that his infected tooth needed to be removed.

33. Although Plaintiff was given a few days worth of 

antibiotics, he was denied any further medical treatment for the 

one month and a half that he remained at Stateville. During 

this period of time, Plaintiff was in a tremendous amount of 

pain. Plaintiff filed a number of emergency grievances that 

were received by Defendant Hardy and others, but to no avail. 

Instead, Plaintiff’s constant pleas for help were ignored by 

Defendant Hardy and by other as-yet unknown medical personnel 

and corrections officers. 

34. On or about September 29, 2010 Plaintiff returned to 

Pinckneyville Correctional Center, where for months he continued 

to experience extreme pain and distress relating to his severe 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:56
12

untreated dental condition. Defendants knew that Plaintiff had 

a serious medical condition, yet they refused to provide him 

with necessary medical attention. Plaintiff filed a number of 

emergency grievances that were received by Defendant Davis and 

others, but to no avail. Again, Plaintiff’s pleas for help were

ignored by Defendants Davis, Clark, Gardner, Searby, and by 

other as-yet unknown medical personnel and corrections officers. 

Legal Claims

35. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if 

restated fully herein.

36. As described more fully above, Defendants had notice 

of Plaintiff’s medical need and of the seriousness of his 

medical need, and yet, they refused to provide him with 

necessary medical attention, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment to the Constitution.

37. The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable 

and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and 

reckless indifference to the rights of others.

38. Alternatively, Defendants were deliberately 

indifferent to Plaintiff’s objectively serious medical needs, 

and their acts were undertaken with malice, willfulness, and 

deliberate indifference to the rights of others.

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:57
13

39. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Randle and Taylor, as Directors of IDOC, were

responsible for the creation, implementation, oversight, and 

supervision of all policies and procedures followed by IDOC 

employees, including medical technicians and correctional 

officers at Pinckneyville and Stateville Correctional Centers.

40. Plaintiff’s injuries were directly and proximately 

caused by the policies and practices of Defendants Randle and 

Taylor.

41. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Randle and Taylor had notice of a widespread 

practice by IDOC employees at Pinckneyville and at Stateville 

under which inmates with serious medical conditions, such as 

Plaintiff, were routinely denied access to proper or sufficient 

medication and medical care.

42. Defendant Randle and Taylor’s policies and procedures 

resulted in the frequent failure and refusal of Pinckneyville 

and Stateville employees to provide proper or adequate 

medication and medical care to inmates, like Plaintiff, whom 

they knew to have serious medical conditions.

43. Defendants Randle and Taylor had a constitutional 

obligation to maintain and provide continuing adequate and 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:58
14

appropriate medical evaluation and medical care and treatment of 

inmates incarcerated at Pinckneyville and at Stateville.

44. As a proximate result of the unconstitutional policies 

and procedures of Defendants Randle and Taylor, as set forth 

herein, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the Eighth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

45. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Fews, as Deputy Director of IDOC’s Office of 

Programs and Special Services, was responsible for the creation, 

implementation, oversight, and supervision of all policies and 

procedures followed by IDOC employees, including medical 

technicians and correctional officers at Pinckneyville and 

Stateville Correctional Centers.

46. Plaintiff’s injuries were directly and proximately 

caused by the policies and practices of Defendant Fews.

47. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Fews had notice of a widespread practice by IDOC 

employees at Pinckneyville and at Stateville under which inmates 

with serious medical conditions, such as Plaintiff, were 

routinely denied access to proper or sufficient medication and 

medical care.

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:59
15

48. Defendant Fews’ policies and procedures resulted in 

the frequent failure and refusal of Pinckneyville and Stateville 

employees to provide proper or adequate medication and medical 

care to inmates, like Plaintiff, whom they knew to have serious 

medical conditions.

49. Defendant Fews had a constitutional obligation to 

maintain and provide continuing adequate and appropriate medical 

evaluation and medical care and treatment of inmates 

incarcerated at Pinckneyville and at Stateville.

50. As a proximate result of the unconstitutional policies 

and procedures of Defendant Fews, as set forth herein, Plaintiff 

was deprived of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution.

51. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Hardy and Ramos, as Wardens of Stateville, were 

responsible for the creation, implementation, oversight, and 

supervision of all policies and procedures followed by IDOC 

employees, including medical technicians and correctional 

officers at Stateville Correctional Center.

52. Plaintiff’s injuries were directly and proximately 

caused by the policies and practices of Defendants Hardy and 

Ramos.

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:60
16

53. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Hardy and Ramos had notice of a widespread 

practice by IDOC employees at Stateville under which inmates 

with serious medical conditions, such as Plaintiff, were 

routinely denied access to proper or sufficient medication and 

medical care.

54. Defendants Hardy and Ramos’ policies and procedures 

resulted in the frequent failure and refusal of Stateville 

employees to provide proper or adequate medication and medical 

care to inmates, like Plaintiff, whom they knew to have serious 

medical conditions.

55. Defendants Hardy and Ramos had a constitutional 

obligation to maintain and provide continuing adequate and 

appropriate medical evaluation and medical care and treatment of 

inmates incarcerated at Stateville.

56. As a proximate result of the unconstitutional policies 

and procedures of Defendants Hardy and Ramos, as set forth 

herein, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the Eighth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

57. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Gaetz and Davis, as Wardens of Pinckneyville, 

were responsible for the creation, implementation, oversight, 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:61
17

and supervision of all policies and procedures followed by IDOC 

employees, including medical technicians and correctional 

officers at Pinckneyville Correctional Center.

58. Plaintiff’s injuries were directly and proximately 

caused by the policies and practices of Defendants Gaetz and 

Davis.

59. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendants Gaetz and Davis had notice of a widespread 

practice by IDOC employees at Pinckneyville under which inmates 

with serious medical conditions, such as Plaintiff, were 

routinely denied access to proper or sufficient medication and 

medical care.

60. Defendants Gaetz and Davis’ policies and procedures 

resulted in the frequent failure and refusal of Pinckneyville 

employees to provide proper or adequate medication and medical 

care to inmates, like Plaintiff, whom they knew to have serious 

medical conditions.

61. Defendants Gaetz and Davis had a constitutional 

obligation to maintain and provide continuing adequate and 

appropriate medical evaluation and medical care and treatment of 

inmates incarcerated at Pinckneyville.

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:62
18

62. As a proximate result of the unconstitutional policies 

and procedures of Defendants Gaetz and Davis, as set forth 

herein, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the Eighth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

63. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. was under contract 

to the State of Illinois, through the Illinois Department of 

Corrections, to provide health care to inmates at Pinckneyville 

and Stateville Correctional Centers, including Plaintiff. In 

such capacity, Defendant Wexford acted under color of law, and 

Wexford, as provider of healthcare services to inmates at 

Pinckneyville and at Stateville, was responsible for the 

creation, implementation, oversight, and supervision of all 

policies and procedures followed by Wexford and IDOC employees 

who were medical care providers to inmates incarcerated at 

Pinckneyville and at Stateville Correctional Centers.

64. Plaintiff’s injuries were directly and proximately 

caused by the policies and practices of Defendant Wexford Health 

Sources.

65. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Wexford maintained a policy or procedure under which 

inmates with serious medical conditions, like Plaintiff, were 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:63
19

routinely denied access to proper or sufficient medical care.

66. Wexford’s policies and procedures resulted in the 

frequent failure and refusal of its employees to provide proper 

or adequate medication and medical care to inmates, like 

Plaintiff, whom they knew to have serious medical conditions.

67. Wexford had a constitutional obligation to maintain 

and provide continuing adequate and appropriate medical 

evaluation and medical care and treatment of prisoners 

incarcerated at Pinckneyville and at Stateville Correctional 

Centers.

68. As a direct and proximate result of the 

unconstitutional policies and procedures of Wexford, as set 

forth herein, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the 

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

69. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Dr. Gardner, as Medical Director of 

Pinckneyville, was responsible for the creation, implementation, 

oversight, and supervision of all medical policies and 

procedures followed by IDOC and Wexford employees at 

Pinckneyville, including medical personnel and correctional 

officers.

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:64
20

70. Plaintiff’s injuries were directly and proximately 

caused by the policies and practices of Defendant Dr. Gardner.

71. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Dr. Gardner had notice of a widespread practice 

by IDOC and Wexford employees at Pinckneyville under which 

inmates with serious medical conditions, such as Plaintiff, were 

routinely denied access to proper or sufficient medication and 

medical care.

72. Defendant Dr. Gardner’s policies and procedures 

resulted in the frequent failure and refusal of Pinckneyville 

employees to provide proper or adequate medication and medical 

care to inmates, like Plaintiff, whom they knew to have serious 

medical conditions.

73. Defendant Dr. Gardner had a constitutional obligation 

to maintain and provide continuing adequate and appropriate 

medical evaluation and medical care and treatment of inmates 

incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center.

74. As a proximate result of the unconstitutional policies 

and procedures of Defendant Dr. Gardner, as set forth herein, 

Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the Eighth Amendment 

to the United States Constitution.

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:65
21

75. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Dr. Ghosh, as Medical Director of Stateville, 

was responsible for the creation, implementation, oversight, and 

supervision of all medical policies and procedures followed by 

IDOC and Wexford employees at Stateville, including medical 

personnel and correctional officers.

76. Plaintiff’s injuries were directly and proximately 

caused by the policies and practices of Defendant Dr. Ghosh.

77. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Dr. Ghosh had notice of a widespread practice by 

IDOC and Wexford employees at Stateville under which inmates 

with serious medical conditions, such as Plaintiff, were 

routinely denied access to proper or sufficient medication and 

medical care.

78. Defendant Dr. Ghosh’s policies and procedures resulted 

in the frequent failure and refusal of Stateville employees to 

provide proper or adequate medication and medical care to 

inmates, like Plaintiff, whom they knew to have serious medical 

conditions.

79. Defendant Dr. Ghosh had a constitutional obligation to 

maintain and provide continuing adequate and appropriate medical 

evaluation and medical care and treatment of inmates 

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:66
22

incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center.

80. As a proximate result of the unconstitutional policies 

and procedures of Defendant Dr. Ghosh, as set forth herein, 

Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the Eighth Amendment 

to the United States Constitution.

81. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Dr. Ghosh, Defendant Dr. Gardner, Defendant Dr. 

Clark, Defendant Dental Hygienist Searby, and Defendant Unknown

Medical Personnel, were agents of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. 

As such, in committing the acts alleged in the preceding 

paragraphs, Defendant Dr. Ghosh, Defendant Dr. Gardner, 

Defendant Dr. Clark, Defendant Dental Hygienist Searby, and 

Defendant Unknown Medical Personnel, were acting at all relevant 

times within the scope of their employment. Defendant Wexford 

is a principal liable for all torts committed by its agents.

82. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this 

case, Defendant Randle, Defendant Taylor, Defendant Fews, 

Defendant Ramos, Defendant Hardy, Defendant Gaetz, Defendant 

Davis, and Defendant Unknown Correctional Officers, acted within 

the scope of their employment. As such, the State of Illinois 

is therefore liable as their employer for any resulting damages 

and award of attorneys’ fees.

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:67
23

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JUAN NEELY, by and through his 

attorneys, LOEVY & LOEVY, respectfully requests that this Court 

enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants MICHAEL P. 

RANDLE, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS; GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE ILLINOIS 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ROBERTA M. FEWS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

ILLINOIS DPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT 

SERVICES; MARCUS HARDY, WARDEN OF STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER; ANTHONY RAMOS, FORMER WARDEN OF STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER; DONALD GAETZ, WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER; RANDY DAVIS, FORMER WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; DR. PARTHASARATHI GHOSH, 

MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER NRC; DR. JOHN 

GARDNER, MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; 

DR. DARLENE CLARK; DENTAL HYGIENIST JAIME SEARBY; UNKNOWN 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS and UNKNOWN MEDICAL PERSONNEL, awarding 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and any 

other relief this Court deems appropriate.

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:68
24

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, JUAN NEELY, by and through his attorneys, LOEVY 

& LOEVY, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

 /s/ Vincenzo Field___ 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Arthur Loevy

Michael Kanovitz

Jon Loevy

Elizabeth Mazur

Vincenzo Field

LOEVY & LOEVY

312 North May St., Ste. 100

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900

Case: 1:12-cv-02231 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:69