Steven C. Crabb v. Wexford Healthcare Services — Pro Se Plaintiff Must File Amended Complaint

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Steven C. Crabb v. Wexford Healthcare Services

District Court, C.D. Illinois

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 4:26-cv-04100

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (10.4K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

STEVEN C. CRABB, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No.: 26-4100-SEM-DJQ
)
)
WEXFORD HEALTHCARE )
SERVICES, )
)
Defendant. )

ORDER

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff Steven C. Crabb, proceeding pro se, is a civil detainee
at the Illinois Department of Human Services’ Treatment and
Detention Facility at Rushville, Illinois (“Rushville”). Plaintiff
requested leave to proceed under a reduced payment procedure for
indigent plaintiffs who are institutionalized but who are not
prisoners as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (h).
The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and
fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who,
within the District Court’s sound discretion, would remain without
legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster
v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972).
pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. §
1915 (d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma

pauperis only if the complaint states a federal action.
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor.

Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However,
conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts
must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its

face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir.
2013)(citation omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered with an inguinal hernia
for at least five years. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Wexford

Healthcare Services (“Wexford”) will not schedule him to have his
hernia surgically repaired. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that Wexford is
aware of his medical condition, but Wexford has turned a blind eye

to his medical needs.
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Wexford is a private corporation. Therefore, Plaintiff

must rely upon the United States Supreme Court’s holding in
U.S. 658, 690-94 (1978), in order to hold Wexford liable under §
1983. Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 18 F.4th 214, 235 (7th
Cir. 2021); Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., [839 F.3d 658,

664](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4311887/calvin-whiting-v-wexford-health-sources-incorp/#664) (7th Cir. 2016). The first element that “a Monell plaintiff must
show [is] that some municipal [or corporate] action directly caused
him to suffer a deprivation of a federal right, and that the

municipality took the action with conscious disregard for the known
or obvious risk of the deprivation.” Dean, 18 F.4th at 236. A Monell
plaintiff must show that municipal or corporate policymakers were

aware of the risk created by the custom or practice, and they must
have failed to take appropriate steps to protect the plaintiff. Thomas
v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dept., 604 F.3d 293, 303 (7th Cir. 2009).
If a plaintiff can make this showing, the plaintiff may then

attempt to impose Monell liability upon a municipality or a private
corporation under three circumstances: (1) the defendant employs
an express policy that causes the Constitutional injury, (2) the

defendant has established a widespread practice that is so well
settled that it constitutes a custom or usage, or (3) the defendant
has final policymaking authority and caused the Constitutional

injury. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 324 (7th Cir.
municipal (or corporate) policy or custom gave rise to the harm
(that is, caused it), or if instead the harm resulted from the acts of
the entity’s agents.” Glisson v. Indiana Dep’t of Corrs., [849 F.3d 372,

379](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4369657/alma-glisson-v-correctional-medical-services/#379) (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Finally, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has specifically extended liability
under Monell to a private corporation in the prison context or

detention context if the corporation had a policy, custom, or
practice that caused a Constitutional violation. Howell v. Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., 987 F.3d 647, 652-53 (7th Cir. 2021).

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any of the factual
allegations necessary to hold Wexford liability under Monell.
Therefore, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis against Wexford.

Nevertheless, the Court is cognizant that courts should
(generally) give a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to try to amend his
Complaint before the Court dismisses his case. Johnson v. Piontek, 799 F. App’x 418, 420 (7th Cir. 2020) (“Courts should grant pro se
litigants leave to amend a complaint at least once, unless it is
certain from the face of the complaint that amendment would be
such an opportunity in this case.
If Plaintiff files a proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff should
pay attention to the dictates of this Order and should include facts

with which to hold Wexford liable, assuming that Plaintiff intends to
proceed against Wexford. If Plaintiff does not comply with this Order
or if Plaintiff does not submit a proposed amended complaint

timely, the Court will dismiss this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis [5] is DENIED because Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Plaintiff is given twenty-one (21) days from the date
of this Order to file a proposed amended complaint.

1. If Plaintiff fails to file a proposed amended complaint by this deadline, the Court will dismiss this case.
2. Finally, if Plaintiff decides to file a proposed amended

complaint, Plaintiff should also file another motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE