The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at the Stateville Correctional Center (Stateville), 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, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 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, 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
While confined in the Menard Correctional Center (Menard), Plaintiff was notified that Eva Moore had been placed on "permanent visiting restriction" by Defendant Ramos. Moore was a former employee of Menard who - prior to her resignation from Menard - had begun corresponding with Plaintiff. See Exhibit A-9 to Plaintiff's Complaint (Moore's letter to Warden Gaetz dated January 5, 2009). Moore continued to correspond with Plaintiff after she had resigned from her position. Id. It appears that Illinois Department of Corrections has a policy which states:
Employees who have been involved with offenders or former employees who have either resigned or have been terminated as a result of involvement with offenders may be permanently restricted from visits if it is determined they may be a threat to safety or security.
Exhibit A-1 to Plaintiff's Complaint (§ 525.60(h) of the Administrative Code). Although called a "permanent visiting restriction," it appears that the restriction is subject to periodic review. See Exhibit A-2 to Plaintiff's Complaint (letter from A. Ramos to Eva Moore date July 11, 2007).
In July 2007, Plaintiff was placed on "punitive segregation" pending investigation into alleged misconduct between him and Moore after a letter and picture were discovered by Menard's mail room. Plaintiff was released from "punitive segregation" after 26 days and, it appears, no disciplinary charges were brought against him.
In July 2007, Moore was also informed by Brad DeDecker, a correctional officer at Menard, that he had a meeting with Defendants Hulick and Ramos. At this meeting, DeDecker - who allegedly had previously fathered a child with Moore - was told that ...