The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:
Plaintiff Kirkland Adkins brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on an incident that occurred while he was housed at Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center ("Southwestern Illinois"). Plaintiff is currently on parole and living in a halfway house in Chicago, Illinois. 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.
Liberally construed, the complaint alleges the following. Three months prior to filing the complaint, Plaintiff began experiencing left shoulder pain that radiated up his neck, to the back of his head, and to the left side of his jaw. Plaintiff also noticed a hard bump on one of his arms. At an unspecified time, Plaintiff met with Defendant Dr. Shah, who diagnosed him with frozen shoulder, prescribed 400 mg Ibuprofen, and advised Plaintiff to exercise the arm.
In May 2011, Defendant Shah told Plaintiff that the pain he was experiencing in his left shoulder was arthritis. At that time, Plaintiff requested an unidentified prescription that he received for the arthritis in his knees while at Cook County Jail, but Defendant Shah refused to prescribe the requested medication. Plaintiff also requested x-rays and a second opinion.
Plaintiff filed two offender grievances over the incident (Doc. 1-1, pp. 1-3). Plaintiff does not relate the outcome of those grievances. Plaintiff requests compensatory damages for his alleged physical and mental injuries.
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into one count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The ...