The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Plaintiff, currently an inmate at the Centralia 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, 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 while he was confined at the Vandalia Correctional Center he was "served spoiled food" on a daily basis. Plaintiff asserts that the meals consisted of "cabbage for breakfast and other meals that included... spoiled...sandwich meats, moldy bread, spoiled sausage foods, [and] fermented/spoiled drinks." Plaintiff claims that the Food Supervisor Hobert and Warden Meeks*fn1 were aware that inedible food was being served, but failed to take any corrective actions.
As a result of consuming these meals, Plaintiff states that he suffered "pain/cramps in the stomach, diarrhea, [and] vomitting [sic]." He asserts that he asked Defendant Rosenberg for permission to go to the Health Care Unit (HCU), but that "Rosenberg refused [him]... aid and retaliated with threats of punishment." Liberally construing the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff filed a grievance concerning the denial of medical care, but Defendants Doe (Health Care Administrator), Benton, and Meeks failed to take any corrective action.
Separate and apart from his allegations concerning being served food that was inedible and which made him ill, Plaintiff states that Defendant Doe (Health Care Administrator) continued to deny him "mental health treatment." Plaintiff states that he "sent many requests for such treatment," but that Defendant Doe (Health Care Administrator) still would not provide him treatment. Again, liberally construing the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff filed a grievance with Defendant Benton concerning the lack of "mental health treatment," but she refused to review Plaintiff's complaint as untimely.
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide Plaintiff's pro se action into three 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 Food Supervisor Hobert and Warden Meeks for providing inedible food in violation of ...