Jonathan Johnston v. Regina Bosie - Pro Se Prisoner Complaint Screening Order

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 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jonathan Johnston v. Regina Bosie, et al.

District Court, C.D. Illinois

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:25-cv-02296

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (13)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (29.4K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

JONATHAN JOHNSTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 2:25-cv-02296-SEM-DJQ
)
REGINA BOSIE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks to allege claims in this
Court.
The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through
such process identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or
the entire action if warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim is legally
insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
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). Conclusory statements and labels are
insufficient—the facts alleged must “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).

Allegations
Plaintiff names Prisoner Review Board member Regina Bosie,
the Prisoner Review Board, the Illinois Department of Corrections,

Menard, Graham, Stateville, and Taylorville Correctional Centers,
Taylorville Records Supervisor Nancy Jacoby, the Administrative
Review Board, and Illinois Department of Corrections Director

Latoya Hughes, as Defendants.
Plaintiff includes several sets of allegations.
One set of allegations relates to Plaintiff’s term in prison. In

short, Plaintiff was released on Mandatory Supervised Release in
October 2024 and believed he had a one-year term to serve. He
intentionally violated the term of his MSR with the intent to serve

the remainder of the one-year term in prison (for which he could
also receive day for day credit). His MSR was revoked by the Prison
Review Board because he violated the terms. He was at some point
thereafter imprisoned at Taylorville Correctional Center.

While at Taylorville, Records Supervisor Nancy Jacoby found
an error in Plaintiff’s records and recalculated Plaintiff’s MSR term
as four years rather than one year, moving Plaintiff’s discharge date
to November 2026. Given the longer MSR term, Plaintiff sought a

rehearing at the Prison Review Board so he could be released on
parole again but was denied, with the PRB indicating his MSR
would have been revoked regardless of his personal reasons for

choosing to intentionally violate the terms of his MSR.
A separate set of allegations relates to Plaintiff’s health. There
are two separate health issues.

First, Plaintiff has an aortic aneurysm, which existed before he
went into IDOC custody. Plaintiff was sentenced in state court on
April 3, 2024. He had an appointment set in June 2024 to have the

aneurysm measured and assessed to see if it remained stable. The
trial court was aware of the appointment and notified Menard
Correctional Center (where Plaintiff was sent to serve his term)

about it. When Plaintiff arrived at Menard, his blood pressure was
high and he did not receive his blood pressure medicine for eight
days. He missed the June appointment. After five months, he was
sent out to have the aneurysm checked but the hospital was

provided the wrong information so they checked for an abdominal
aneurysm which Plaintiff does not have. When Plaintiff was released
in October 2024 to a halfway house, his aneurysm was assessed
and was determined to be stable.

Second, Plaintiff complains about issues related to nodules in
his right lung, which were first identified in winter 2024 while
Plaintiff was at the halfway house. Tests were required to assess the

nature of the nodules. One reason Plaintiff intentionally violated his
MSR terms was so that he could be fully released sooner and
address this lung issue on his own. When Plaintiff was at

Taylorville, he was approved to see an outside doctor regarding his
lung issues, in July 2025. That appointment was cancelled. The
same occurred two weeks later. Plaintiff is concerned about the lack

of testing for his lung nodules. It is unclear how long Plaintiff was at
Taylorville. He is presently in prison at Vandalia and has been since
summer or fall 2025. Plaintiff states he has not filed any grievances

related to any medical issues since he was in prison at Menard in
2024, prior to his brief period in the community on MSR.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges issues related to sex offender
treatment programming. He was denied access to that program at

Taylorville because he had violated the terms of his MSR. He wants
to participate in that program to earn good time credit. An evaluator
prepared a twenty-one page report stating Plaintiff did not need the
sex offender treatment.

Pleading Standards
“Only persons who cause or participate in [constitutional]
violations are responsible.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th

Cir. 2007). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that the
plaintiff submit a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The

Seventh Circuit has consistently noted that the essential function of
a complaint under the civil rules ... is to put the defendant on
notice of the plaintiff’s claim. Ross Brothers Const. Co., Inc, v.

International Steel Services, Inc., 283 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir.
2001)). While it is not necessary for a plaintiff to plead specific facts,

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007),
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2007) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)

(observing that courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).
Joinder of Claims
“A prisoner may join Defendants in the same action only if the

claims against each one ‘aris[e] out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences ….” Mitchell v.
Kallas, 895 F.3d 492, 502–03 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

P. 20(a)(2)). “Joinder that requires the inclusion of extra parties is
limited to claims arising from the same transaction or series of
related transactions.” Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., [689

F.3d 680, 683](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/804985/wheeler-v-wexford-health-sources-inc/#683) (7th Cir. 2012). “To be precise: a plaintiff may put in
one complaint every claim of any kind against a single defendant,
per Rule 18(a), but a complaint may present claim #1 against

Defendant A, and claim #2 against Defendant B, only if both claims
arise ‘out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences.’” Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources,

Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Rule 20(a)(1)(A)).
“[D]istrict courts should not allow inmates to flout the rules for
joining claims and Defendants, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20, or to
circumvent the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s fee requirements by

combining multiple lawsuits into a single complaint.” Owens v.
Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017).
The Seventh Circuit “target[s] for dismissal ‘omnibus’
complaints—often brought by repeat players—that raise claims

about unrelated conduct against unrelated Defendants.” Mitchell, 895 F.3d at 503. However, “judges may sever unrelated claims into
separate suits (rather than dismiss the claims) if the statute of

limitations has otherwise lapsed.” Morris v. Kulhan, 745 F. App’x
648, 649 (7th Cir. 2018).
Analysis – Procedural Pleading Issues

Plaintiff’s pleadings do not meet the requirements of Rule 8. As
to personal involvement of Defendants, Plaintiff alleges the direct
involvement of Jacoby regarding recalculating his term of MSR and

of PRB member Bosie in revoking his MSR. Otherwise, he does not
allege the direct involvement of any individual. Plaintiff names
several prisons, but prison facilities themselves cannot be sued.

Instead, individuals have to be sued on claims of individual
wrongdoing. Director Hughes and the IDOC can be sued for future
injunctive relief only. These issues need to be addressed in any
amended complaint.

Plaintiff’s pleadings also appear to run counter to the joinder
rules. Plaintiff combines issues that are unrelated to one another. If
he moves to amend, any proposed amended complaint must comply
with the joinder rules described above. If Plaintiff wants to sue

different Defendants about things that happened at different times
and at different prisons, he will be required to proceed in separate
lawsuits.

Certain claims do not belong in this District but instead
belong in the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiff’s claims related
to how Menard medical staff members treated his aneurysm would

fall into that category, since Menard is in the Southern District of
Illinois. As to Plaintiff’s lung issue, it is unclear what periods of time
he was held in what prisons while that issue has been ongoing. He

was held for a period at Taylorville and has been held at Vandalia
since filing this case. He would need to make these dates clear.
Finally, Plaintiff acknowledges that he has not filed any

grievances regarding his health care complaints since 2024, when
he was in prison at Menard. Failure to file and fully exhaust
appeals on a prison grievance is an affirmative defense to a lawsuit
filed by a prisoner. That means that, if a lawsuit is allowed to

proceed, the defendants can ask to have it dismissed or to have
certain claims or Defendants dismissed, if the plaintiff has not filed
and pursued a grievance through the final level of the
Administrative Review Board.

These pleading issues call for dismissal of the complaint
without prejudice and allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to file an
amended complaint.

Analysis – Substance of the Claims
The Court will also briefly address the substance of Plaintiff’s
allegations as well so that he can take these matters into

consideration in deciding whether and how to amend his pleadings.
MSR Term
Regarding the recalculation of Plaintiff’s term of MSR, Plaintiff

does not state a claim. The term of MSR is a mandatory component
of a sentence and is automatically part of the sentence as a
function of Illinois law. People v. Lamb, 2017 IL 122271, ¶¶16-17,

1. The Illinois Supreme Court has specifically stated that prosecutors and judges are not empowered to alter statutorily mandated MSR terms. Lamb, 2017 IL 122271, ¶16 (“We recognize that MSR terms are statutorily required and that the State has no

right to offer the withholding of such a period as a part of the plea
negotiations and the court has no power to withhold such period in
imposing sentence.”) (cleaned up). So Plaintiff had no right to
additional process before IDOC enforced the correct MSR term as

established by statute. See Nance v. Lane, 663 F. Supp. 33, 35 (N.D. Ill. 1987).
If an error in initial (or for that matter, later) calculations of

the correct MSR term exist, Illinois Department of Corrections
personnel can correct the error and update records to ensure the
statutory term of MSR is applied. If the term of MSR is inaccurately

calculated in the view of a prisoner, he must seek relief through a
petition for mandamus in state court pursued at all levels of review,
followed, if unsuccessful in state court, by a petition for habeas

corpus relief in federal court. “[A] prisoner in state custody cannot
use a § 1983 action to challenge ‘the fact or duration of his
confinement.’” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (quoting

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973)); Ortega v. Ford, No.
23-1784, 2024 WL 1634072, at *3 (7th Cir. Apr. 16, 2024), cert.
denied, 145 S. Ct. 437 (2024).
Aneurysm Assessment

Plaintiff’s claims related to his aneurysm care do not appear to
state a claim. Though an appointment was missed and although
Plaintiff was eight days without certain medications, he also alleges
that his aneurysm remained stable. He does not allege that he

suffered any harm or injury from the delay in assessment of this
existing condition. And Plaintiff does not name any specific
individual, even by title or role, who he believes failed to properly

provide care.
Plaintiff may still be able to state a claim for nominal, and
possibly punitive, damages for deliberate indifference to a

substantially increased risk of future harm for failure to properly
monitor the aneurysm and ensure continuous receipt of
medications. If he desires to pursue this claim, he may do so in his

amended complaint. This claim would be specific to the actions of
individuals responsible for Plaintiff’s health care at Menard
Correctional Center in the Southern District of Illinois. If Plaintiff

includes these allegations in an amended complaint, and if those
allegations state a claim, the Court will sever the claims into a new
lawsuit and will transfer that lawsuit to the Southern District of
Illinois, which will require payment of an additional filing fee for

that lawsuit. Plaintiff should take all these matters into
consideration when deciding if he wants to pursue a claim related
to the aneurysm treatment issue.

Lung Care
Plaintiff’s allegations related to his lung care may be amended
to state a claim. He alleges that imaging taken in winter 2024

indicated right lung nodules and that, after he was re-admitted to
IDOC custody, part of which he served at Taylorville Correctional
Center, he did not receive needed testing or assessment to of the

nodules. Plaintiff alleges that he does not know if he has lung
disease and does not know if additional treatment is possible or
needed. If Plaintiff amends his complaint, he needs to identify the

individuals he seeks to hold responsible for his inadequate
healthcare at Taylorville, even if only by position or title, for this
claim to proceed. If he knows, he should also allege whether he has

been diagnosed with lung disease.
A hurdle Plaintiff will likely face as to this claim is that he
acknowledges that he has not filed or pursued any grievances
related to the lack of testing for his lung. If Plaintiff is still

experiencing this issue at Vandalia, and if he intends to sue based
on it, he may want to immediately pursue the administrative
grievance procedure through all levels of appeal, with specifics as to
the individuals he believes are responsible, so that he can preserve

any potential claim against the individuals responsible for his
medical care at Vandalia.
Prison Programming

Finally, regarding the sex offender treatment program, there is
no constitutional right to participation in prison programming for
the purpose of earning good time credit. And Plaintiff’s allegations

indicate that based on the report prepared by IDOC personnel, he is
not in need of and thus not eligible for that course of treatment
anyway. As such, these allegations do not state a federal claim.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiff has 35 days to file a motion for leave to amend
with attached Amended Complaint. If he does not do so
the case will be dismissed without prejudice.
3. Motions for Status [8] [9] [11] [12] are MOOT. Motion for
Service [5] is DENIED pending any amended pleading.
Entered this 24th day of April, 2026.
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE