The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:
Plaintiff Lorenzo Mitchell, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center in Sumner, Illinois, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is serving two consecutive nine year sentences for convictions of Aggravated Battery of a Child/Bodily Harm, imposed on July 23, 2009. 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, 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; this action is subject to summary dismissal. The Complaint
Plaintiff's complaint names Officer Nutall and Officer Griffin, correctional officers employed at Lawrence Correctional Center, whom Plaintiff claims each violated his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff states that on July 21, 2010, Officer Nutall verbally threatened him. Subsequently, on September 11, 2010, Officer Nutall, through verbal statements, gave Plaintiff reason to believe his food had been tainted. Plaintiff additionally claims that on December 20, 2010, Officer Nutall assaulted him by hitting him with a door as Plaintiff was exiting the gymnasium and thereby caused him injury.
As to Officer Griffin, Plaintiff states that on March 6, 2011, Officer Griffin executed a shakedown of Plaintiff's cell, and Plaintiff, who remained asleep in his bunk, suffered injuries when Griffin pulled the mattress, causing him to fall to the bottom bunk. Plaintiff claims Officer Griffin threatened to kill Plaintiff if he told anyone of the incident. Plaintiff therefore requests protective custody.
Plaintiff claims to have filed grievances with the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC) concerning these matters. He attaches six responses from the IDOC, only two of which pertain directly to his pleadings. The IDOC Administrative Review Board denied both grievances.
Plaintiff requests that $300,000 be awarded him for pain and suffering and that he be ...