The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GILBERT District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate currently 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). On February 26, 2009, Plaintiff entered protective custody at Menard. However, Plaintiff's medications remained stored with the rest of his personal property. Plaintiff saw Defendant Gayle passing out medications, and asked her to retrieve his medication. Defendant Gayle said she would bring Plaintiff his medications, but never did.
The next morning, Plaintiff informed Defendant Monroe that he needed his medication, and that no one had yet retrieved it for him. Plaintiff asked Defendant Monroe to retrieve the medication, but Defendant Monroe refused. On the same date Plaintiff was screened by Defendant Butler to determine whether he could remain in protective custody permanently. At this time Plaintiff made Defendant Butler aware that he was not receiving his medication. While Defendant Butler told Plaintiff that he would receive his medication, she did nothing further to ensure that this happened. Plaintiff then wrote to Defendant Brown, informing him that Plaintiff was not receiving his medications. Plaintiff also made Defendant Feinerman aware of the deprivation. Defendants Brown and Feinerman failed to respond, and did not take corrective actions. In total, Plaintiff was without his medication, which he was to take twice a day, Thursday evening, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday morning.
On March 31, 2009, Plaintiff went to see Defendant Feinerman relating to an unspecified ailment. A nurse took Plaintiff's vitals, and informed him that his blood pressure was elevated at 160. The nurse made Defendant Feinerman aware of the elevated blood pressure, but Defendant Feinerman did nothing to treat the condition.
On May 12, 2009, Plaintiff spoke to Defendant Brown, informing him of threats he had received from Defendant Fry, who was Plaintiff's cellmate. Plaintiff asked to be moved to a new cell, but Defendant Brown refused this request. That evening Plaintiff was assaulted by Defendant Fry.
At some unspecified date, Plaintiff complained to Defendant Monroe and Defendant Brown that he did not have access to a restroom during recreation period. Plaintiff asked to be allowed back in to the cell house to use the restroom, but Defendant Monroe denied this request. Plaintiff asked Defendant Brown to rectify the situation, but Defendant Brown took no further action. Discussion:
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e) and 10(b), the Court finds it appropriate to break the claims in Plaintiff's pro se complaint and other pleadings into numbered counts, as shown below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a ...