The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
Plaintiff, Carlos A. Montanez, an inmate in 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, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, 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. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the complaint and supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.
The Complaint Plaintiff Montanez states that his Eight Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated when the Defendants failed to provide timely and proper treatment of his prostatitis, kidney stones, and chronic pain in his knee, hamstring and hips, and that as a result he suffered unnecessary pain and exacerbation of his symptoms. His prostate problems included recurring pain and infections, and he claims Defendants Feinerman, Fahim and Molly withheld his pain medication and provided improper treatment. He alleges that Defendants Feinerman and Fahim failed to provide any treatment for his kidney stones. He also claims that Defendants Feinerman and Fahim refused to refer him to a specialist or order an MRI for his knee, leg and hip pain. He re-injured his knee, suffering more pain, after he was moved to a high bunk and Defendants Brown, Molly and Fahim refused his request to be returned to a low bunk, where he had been placed since 2007 due to his medical issues. Plaintiff also raises tort claims for medical negligence and malpractice against Defendants Feinerman, Fahim, Brown and Molly, based on the same conduct giving rise to his claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs.
Plaintiff further alleges that his due process rights were violated by Defendants Brown, Gaetz, and Spiller when his numerous grievances over the inattention to his medical problems either went unanswered or were not addressed in a timely manner. Finally, he alleges in a later-filed Affidavit (Doc. 8) that he has been placed in segregation in retaliation for filing this action.
The Plaintiff requests a jury trial, seeks an order requiring Defendants Fahim, Molly and Brown to provide him with medical tests and treatment to address his medical problems, and seeks compensatory damages. While Plaintiff did not detail the amounts of damages sought in his complaint, he states in his Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 9) that he requests the following amounts: $25,000 each from Defendants Feinerman, Gaetz, and Spiller; $10,000 from Defendant Molly; $7,000 from Defendant Brown; and $15,000 from Defendant Fahim.
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into three (3) 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 ...