The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
Plaintiff Michael Hall, an inmate in Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on incidents that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff is serving an 18-year sentence for home invasion. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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 Section 1915A and dismiss this action.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Allsup, the Menard Law Librarian, intentionally withheld his legal documents and copies intended to be sent to the Court, for seven weeks, without Plaintiff's permission. Plaintiff asserts that these actions have denied him access to an attorney and the Court. He also claims that Defendant Allsup has a "Dorothy Brown envelope" and refuses to return it. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $7,000 for the seven weeks his papers were withheld.
The complaint was filed on August 19, 2010. Plaintiff later submitted several documents which were filed on August 27, 2010, as a "supplement" to the complaint (Doc. 4). These included a letter to a judge unrelated to this case, and another to the Clerk of Court, laced with profanities, inquiring about documents Plaintiff had mailed. None of these documents shed any additional light on the allegations in the complaint, nor were they structured in the form of a motion for relief. Accordingly, they shall be returned to Plaintiff and shall receive no further consideration.
Plaintiff is warned that he must refrain from using offensive or profane language in his communications with the Court, and that any future requests for relief must be in the form of a motion or other pleading. See Disher v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 790, 794 n.2 (S.D. Ill. 2007). Any submissions that do not comply with these requirements shall be returned to Plaintiff. The use of profanity may result in sanctions ...