The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Centralia Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks damage for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. 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 states that he is a diabetic and he suffers from "low blood sugar attacks."*fn1 He further states that on November 11, 2009, at approximately 11 p.m., he asked Defendant Haithcoat to check on him because Plaintiff "was feeling kind of low." Defendant Haithcoat informed Plaintiff that "she would see what she could do" and left. Plaintiff states that he then ate a snack consisting of a cheese sandwich.
Plaintiff alleges that about 2 a.m., another guard came to his cell and told Plaintiff "to go into his box and get something to eat." Plaintiff states that this guard - who is not identified and is not named as a defendant in this action - verbally harassed him by calling Plaintiff "lazy." Plaintiff states that because his blood sugar was low, he did not get something to eat as instructed by the guard.
Plaintiff asserts that about 2:15 a.m., Defendant Hayes came to his cell "throwing a carton of milk" at him while he was asleep hitting Plaintiff in the chest area. Defendant Hayes informed Plaintiff that "this was the last time he would bring [Plaintiff] something from the Health Care Unit or Dining Room." Defendant Hayes ordered Plaintiff to "eat" and, then, "threw some jelly and two (2) packs of crackers at [Plaintiff]" hitting him in the chest. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Hayes then left without waiting to see whether Plaintiff was alright or to ensure Plaintiff drank the milk. Plaintiff states that he was awakened at approximately 4:35 a.m. taken to the Health Care Unit where his blood sugar was measured as "a low 41."
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 Haithcoat and Hayes for denying him adequate medical care for his diabetes in violation of ...