The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Menard 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:
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).
Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from hypertension and that he is prescribed medication to control this medical condition. Plaintiff further alleges that he was denied his blood pressure medication by Defendant Pollion from February 15, 2009, through March 9, 2009. Plaintiff states that he filed numerous grievances concerning the lack of medication, but these grievances were ignored by Defendant Ryan.
Plaintiff also asserts that the water in his cell was either undrinkable or completely shutoff during the period of February 19, 2009, through March 25, 2009. As a result, Plaintiff asserts that once he began receiving his blood pressure medication on March 9, he was unable to take it because he was without water. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Polare was aware of the fact that Plaintiff was being held in a cell without water, but failed to transfer him to a cell with a working water faucet. Furthermore, Defendant Polare told him that the water would be fixed when the plumber would get to it. Again, Plaintiff asserts that he filed complaints, but these grievances were ignored by Defendant Ryan.
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide Plaintiff's pro se action into two 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 Pollion and Ryan for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs (hypertension) in ...