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:
(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).
On or about January 18, 2008, Plaintiff was interviewed by Defendant Brad Thomas and other Internal Affairs officers concerning the possession and sale of tobacco products. Plaintiff denied possessing or selling tobacco. It appears that Plaintiff was placed on "investigative status" and deprived of all (or some) of his personal property. Plaintiff remained on "investigative status" for longer than 30-days, a length that (according to Plaintiff) violates state regulations. It appears that Plaintiff was released from investigative status on or about February 17, 2008.
On February 20, 2008, however, a disciplinary report was written charging Plaintiff with impeding an investigation and trading or trafficking. Plaintiff states that he was never actually served a copy of the disciplinary report - a task that was supposed to be carried out by Defendant Kaesberg. Plaintiff claims that the failure to serve him a copy of the disciplinary report violated his right to Due Process of law and was in violation of state regulations.
On or about February 27, 2008, an Adjustment Committee chaired by Defendant Jerry Goforth found Plaintiff guilty of both violations. As a result, Plaintiff received the following discipline: (1) 3 months C-grade; (2) 3 months segregation; and (3) 3 months commissary restriction.*fn1
Throughout his time on investigative status and following his disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff has filed numerous grievances addressing what he believes are the numerous violations of state regulations and his constitutional rights. At one point, it appears that Plaintiff was stymied in pursuing an appeal from the denial of his grievances because he did not have the appropriate copies. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Cowan was supposed to provide him with the required copies, but failed to do so. Plaintiff further charges that those responsible for reviewing his grievances failed to adequately investigate his complaints or - in the case of Defendant Linda Goforth - were biased against him due to a personal relationship. Consequently, Plaintiff charges that those responsible for reviewing his grievances denied him his First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances and deprived him of Due Process.
Additionally, Plaintiff charges that Defendants Walker and Hullick failed in "implementing and enforcing proper security measures regarding the Illinois Smoke-Free Act," ...