The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:
Plaintiff Andre Winston, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is nearing the end of his thirty-seven year sentence for aggravated criminal sexual assault, armed robbery, and armed violence. 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.
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, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), 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 and supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A and shall dismiss this action.
Plaintiff filed his original complaint on December 2, 2011 (Doc. 1), invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and challenging the revocation of good conduct credits following three disciplinary reports issued to him, on March 27, March 30, and May 24, 1990. Each of these reports was issued for Plaintiff's failure to attend his assigned educational classes. Plaintiff claims that prior to the issuance of these three reports, he had been placed in administrative segregation for six months. Because he was in segregation, he argues that he could no longer be required to attend the classes, and the disciplinary tickets should not have been issued (Doc. 1, p. 2).
On January 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 9) and tendered his proposed amended complaint. The amended complaint, which has not been accepted for filing, is titled: "Amended complaint - alternate claim for habeas corpus." In it, Plaintiff requests the Court to order a speedier release or to correct his ...