The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate currently in the Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is serving a fifty-two year sentence for murder. 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 supporting exhibits, the Court finds that under § 1915A Plaintiff's claim cannot be dismissed at this stage of the litigation.
The following version of the facts of this case is gleaned from Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). Prior to the incident about which Plaintiff complains, Plaintiff and his former cellmate were brought before the adjustment committee regarding contraband discovered in their cell. Before the hearing, Plaintiff's former cellmate threatened to physically harm Plaintiff if he refused to "carry the weight" of the infraction. Plaintiff refused to do so, and both Plaintiff and his former cellmate were sentenced to disciplinary segregation. Plaintiff reported the threat to the officers on duty, Defendant Harrington and Officer Drake. Later, Officer Drake was replaced by Defendant Bradley, and Plaintiff witnessed Officer Drake inform Defendant Bradley about the threat against Plaintiff.
On July 21, 2010, Plaintiff's cellmate was placed on the same segregation yard as Plaintiff for recreation, and proceeded to approach and severely beat Plaintiff. As a result of the encounter, Plaintiff suffered a fractured skull along with bone and nerve damage to his jawline and left eye socket. The damage caused was so severe that Plaintiff had to be taken for outside medical assistance.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Harrington and Defendant Bradley were aware of the threat against his safety and failed to protect him by disregarding the risk and placing Plaintiff and his cellmate on the same segregation ...