The opinion of the court was delivered by: William D. Stiehl District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Danville Correctional Center, brings this action for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Also before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for status hearing (Docs. 6 and 7). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal
On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 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." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
Plaintiff alleges that while confined in Pinckneyville Correctional Center (PCC) he was denied adequate medical care for his serious medical needs (ulcer, irritable bowel syndrome, arthritis, vericose veins, and back pain) in violation of the Eighth Amendment by being denied his prescribed medication for a period of 31 days; by being denied a low bunk, a knee brace, and support stockings for over 200 days; and by being forced to consume his meals in 10 minutes or less with just one 4 ounce serving of a liquid for over 200 days. Additionally Plaintiff asserts that his Eighth Amendment rights were also violated by the following acts: (1) denial of adequate clothing for inclement weather; (2) being double celled with another inmate; (3) being exposed to second hand smoke; (4) being deprived of adequate sleep; (5) being housed in a cell with inadequate heat during the winter months; (6) being exposed to contaminated water and other unclean conditions in the communal shower area; and (7) being denied anti-bacterial cleaning supplies for his cell. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that strip searches of inmates are performed three at a time so that an inmate must expose himself to other inmates. Plaintiff claims that requiring him to strip in front of other inmates violates his right to privacy and his religious rights.
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide Plaintiff's pro se action into nine counts. 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. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.
COUNT 1: Against Defendants Bartley, Giacomo, Lane, Tariq, Larson, Lucas, Hill, Mathes, Hartman, and Kisro for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical ...