The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jack A. Beasley, an inmate in Western Illinois Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising out of events that occurred while Plaintiff was housed in Pinckneyville Correctional Center. Plaintiff is serving a three year sentence for obstruction of justice and 30 month sentences for driving with license suspended/revoked. 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, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff alleges that from the time he arrived at the Pinckneyville Correctional Center on August 20, 2009, to the date he was transferred to the Pontiac Correctional Center on February 10, 2010, the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Plaintiff's right leg is amputated below the knee, and he uses a prosthetic leg for mobility. In order for the leg to fit, and for Plaintiff to be able to walk properly, he must have special leg socks for his stump which should be changed every day, and must wear shoes on his foot and the prosthesis. He was transferred from Shawnee Correctional Center to Pinckneyville wearing no shoes and with only one leg sock. Upon Plaintiff's arrival, he was placed in segregation. Plaintiff requested the return of his shoes and additional leg socks, but he did not get the shoes back until October 26, 2009, sixty-three days after his arrival.
In the meantime, Plaintiff developed painful sores on his stump and foot due to having to walk on the prosthesis without his shoes or the ability to change the leg sock. Worse, the foot on the prosthetic leg became broken because it was not designed to be used without a shoe. Plaintiff claims that despite his requests, he never received treatment for the sores. He had to endure pain from walking without the shoes or a change of socks, and the pain from his sores continued even after his shoes were returned. He also complains about the delay in repairing the broken prosthesis, which was not fixed until January 20, 2010. He faults Defendants Hairrs, Fenton, Obadina, Webb, and Dintelman for their deliberate indifference to his medical needs and violation of the ADA.
Plaintiff further alleges his due process rights were violated by Defendants Lutz, Dintelman, and Miller's failure to respond to his grievances.
Plaintiff requests a jury trial, and seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to properly treat the needs of disabled prisoners, compensatory damages of $150,000 against each Defendant jointly and severally, ...