The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution located in Greenville, Illinois (FCI-Greenville), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief forallegedly being denied medical care for his high blood pressure and related medical issues. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Roeckeman retaliated against him for filing this civil action. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the amended complaint*fn1 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.
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 is a federal inmate serving a 30 year sentence for drug and currency offenses. See United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Davis, Case No. 5:89-cr-50012 (S.D. Ill.). Plaintiff alleges that on April 4, 2009, he was transported from FCI-Greenville to Marion County Jail pursuant to "a writ" for the purpose of awaiting a "court proceeding." Plaintiff asserts that he suffers from high blood pressure and that he was transported from FCI- Greenville with both his "medical sheet" and his prescribed medication. At the Marion County Jail, Plaintiff states that he asked "Sheriff's Deputies" for his medication. The "Sheriff's Deputies" allegedly refused to provide Plaintiff with his medication and informed Plaintiff that he would have to see a doctor or a nurse before being given any medication. Plaintiff states that it was "3 or 4 days" before he received "a pill." This pill, however, was not the same medication that was prescribed to him at FCI-Greenville. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that this pill "left him sick and his blood pressure out of control." Additionally, Plaintiff claims he suffered from diarrhea and headaches.
In his supplement, Plaintiff contends that on May 2, 2009, he became even sicker because he had not been provided the proper medication for his blood pressure problem. As a result, it appears Plaintiff fell out of his top bunk bed and was briefly knocked unconscious. Plaintiff was subsequently taken to a hospital in Salem, Illinois, where he remained until May 4, 2009. Upon being released from the hospital, it appears that Plaintiff was given a prescription by a hospital doctor. Plaintiff asserts, however, that Defendant Roeckeman contacted Dr. Janudi and had Dr. Janudi substitute aspirin for the prescribed medication. Plaintiff alleges that Roeckeman made the substitution in retaliation for Plaintiff filing the original complaint (Doc. 1) in this case. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant DeVore "let[s] Mr. Roeckeman [sic] run this jail with a free hand."
Finally, on June 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that he had been returned to FCI-Greenville and was no longer ...