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. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides, in pertinent part:
(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). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that the complaint is subject to dismissal.
The following version of the facts of this case are gleaned from Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff complains that the Illinois Department of Corrections rules have not been updated to reflect changes in federal laws and social views concerning human rights and the right to express one's sexual orientation. Specifically, Plaintiff points to the Matthew Shepard Act, which was signed in to law on October 28, 2009 by President Barack Obama.*fn1 This Act expanded existing hate-crime law to include crimes that were motivated by a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, disability, race, or national origin. Because the Illinois Department of Corrections rules have not been updated, Plaintiff alleges that a number of unnamed correctional officers at three different prisons were able to write Plaintiff disciplinary reports for expressing his sexual orientation, either through verbal statements or for wearing his hair in braids, and have harassed Plaintiff for his self-expression. These disciplinary reports have been sent to Defendants Walker, Randle, and the Prison Review Board, who have approved of the disciplinary actions taken against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff wrote a grievance after his religious status was not changed after he made a request for such. This grievance was sent to Defendants Randle and Fairchild, who acquiesced ...