The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Stateville Correctional Center, was at all times relevant to this action housed in the Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff 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). 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). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that some of the claims in the complaint may be dismissed at this point in the litigation.
The following version of the facts of this case is gleaned from Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff was threatened by another inmate, so on October 1, 2007 he signed into the protective custody unit of Menard. Plaintiff witnessed Defendants Saddler and Beardan direct an assault on another inmate, and thus wrote a letter to the assistant warden, who is not a party to this case. The grievance was withheld by staff, and the next morning Defendant Saddler came to Plaintiff's cell and made threats relating to the letter. Plaintiff then filed an emergency grievance (grievance #1) concerning the threats. Defendant Hulick received this grievance, and determined that the matter was not an emergency, and denied the grievance.
On January 23, 2008, the inmate who had originally threatened Plaintiff was moved to Plaintiff's unit by John Doe Defendants, and housed three cells down from Plaintiff. Plaintiff informed Defendant Butler of the situation, but neither inmate was moved. Plaintiff filed another emergency grievance (grievance #2) to Defendant Hulick concerning the matter. The grievance was reviewed by Defendant Maue, who determined that there was no emergency and denied the grievance.
On February 9, 2008, Plaintiff witnessed another inmate assault committed by Defendants Beardan and Westerman, which was witnessed by Defendant Leifer. Plaintiff filed another emergency grievance (grievance #3) concerning this incident, which was reviewed by Defendant Hulick and termed a non-emergency. Plaintiff appealed the decision and the grievance was sent to Defendant Walker, who concurred with Defendant Hulick's decision.
On February 11, 2008, Plaintiff's cell remained locked while the others were open, causing him to have to ask for the cell to be opened. Plaintiff was at that point alone with correctional officers, and Defendant Leifer pointed Plaintiff out to other officers as the inmate who was filing grievances. Plaintiff went on to catch up to the other inmates, where Defendant Westerman threatened Plaintiff for filing false grievances. That same day Plaintiff filed another emergency grievance (grievance #4) ...