The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Shawnee Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.-- 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.
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, 590 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, some factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, No. 08-4286, 2009 WL 2535731, at *5 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2009). Additionally, Courts "should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements." Id. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, No. 06-4260, 2009 WL 2498580, at *2 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2009).
Plaintiff alleges that in November 2006, he was diagnosed with a hernia. From November 2006 to June 2008, Plaintiff was confined at the Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff states that during this time period "he complained [about] and was denied adequate treatment for this hernia."
From June 2008 to November 2008, Plaintiff was confined at Pontiac Correctional Center. Plaintiff asserts that during this time period he "requested medical attention... [but was provided] no relief or surgery to relieve pain from hernia."
From November 2008 through the date of the complaint, Plaintiff has been confined at Shawnee Correctional Center. Plaintiff states that he has "again requested medical attention and again been denied treatment and medicine to alleviate pain [from the hernia]."
Plaintiff claims that his "civil rights are being violated" and he asserts that Defendants Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), Walker, David, Mahone, and Pollion "should be held accountable for the issue." The complaint identifies Defendant Walker as the Director of the IDOC; Defendant Mahone as the medical director at Pontiac Correctional Center; Defendant Pollion as a certified nurse ...