The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After reviewing the complaint, this Court is convinced that certain claims contained within are subject to severance, George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007), and this Court will reserve threshold review of the remaining claims pending the disposition of the severed claims.
In March of 2010, while working in the prison's dietary department, Plaintiff was told by Defendant Peters that he should not return to work the next day with braids in his hair. When Plaintiff argued that it was his right to express himself, Defendant Peters told Plaintiff that he doesn't have rights in prison. Plaintiff and Defendant Peters continued to argue until Defendant Turley came into the room. Defendant Turley handcuffed Plaintiff then escorted him to segregation, smacking Plaintiff in the back of the head before putting Plaintiff in his cell.
The next morning Defendant Taylor came to Plaintiff's cell and began making threats against Plaintiff relating to Plaintiff's sexual orientation. Defendant Taylor then refused to provide Plaintiff with lunch, and continued this denial of food for two days.
Sometime thereafter Plaintiff was taken to an adjustment committee hearing, where he was asked by Defendant Unknown assistant warden of programs (AWP) why he was claiming that his rights were violated. Defendant Unknown AWP then told Plaintiff that he does not have any rights in prison. Defendants Unknown adjustment committee members (ACM) then informed Plaintiff that he was charged with dangerous communication, threats and intimidations, insolence, and disobeying a direct order. Defendants Unknown AWP and Unknown ACM found Plaintiff guilty and sent him to segregation.
At some unspecified time Plaintiff requested that Defendant Love change Plaintiff's religious status because the incorrect status had been listed. This request was denied, allegedly because of Plaintiff's sexual orientation. Plaintiff also made this request of Defendant Sutton, and it was also denied. Plaintiff further requested that Defendant Sutton change Plaintiff's dietary restrictions to an all-vegetable diet, but this request was also refused.
Again at an unspecified time or times Defendant Schwartzlander began harassing Plaintiff because of his sexual orientation, following Plaintiff and verbally harassing Plaintiff about the braids Plaintiff wore in his hair.
Defendant Mathis attempted to punish Plaintiff by having other inmates attack him based on his sexual orientation. Defendant Mathis then told Plaintiff that he did not have a right to be openly gay in prison.
At some other unspecified time while Plaintiff was working as a laundry porter, he asked Defendant Chapman to schedule him off on his Sabbath, which ran from sundown on Fridays to sundown on Saturdays. Defendant Chapman told Plaintiff that if he took Sabbath off he would receive a disciplinary ticket, segregation, and would lose his job. Plaintiff made this same request of Defendant Flag, who also refused to give Plaintiff the time off. Plaintiff then spit on the wall in anger and told the inmates around him that they do have rights in prison regardless of what the guards think. Defendant Sager witnessed this outburst, and wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary ticket for telling other inmates that "they don't have to listen to what the guards say". Plaintiff was then sent to an adjustment committee hearing where he was sent to segregation for three months.
At some unspecified time Defendant Fallert threw away four of Plaintiff's grievances regarding actions taking place in the prison.
Again at an unspecified time or times Defendants Walker, Matthews, and Shaw began harassing and threatening Plaintiff about his sexual orientation and the braids Plaintiff wore in his hair. Defendant Phillips also harassed Plaintiff, and attempted to get other inmates to attack Plaintiff because of his sexual orientation. Defendants Unknown second shift correctional officers (SCO) also attempted to get other inmates to attack Plaintiff for his sexual orientation, and also withheld Plaintiff's mail.
At some unspecified time Plaintiff complained to Defendant Furlow about the actions of the other named Defendants, namely that his mail had been stolen, that he was being threatened, and that guards were attempting to have Plaintiff attacked. Plaintiff remarked that these actions amount to prejudice and made vulgar remarks about those responsible. Defendant Furlow then wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary ticket for the vulgar remarks, stating that Plaintiff was insolent and was making threats and intimidations. Plaintiff was sent to another ...