The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge:
Plaintiff Nakia Herron, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional Center ("Pinckneyville"), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based in part on incidents that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Big Muddy Correctional Center ("Big Muddy"). Plaintiff is serving a 38 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:
(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.
On April 19, 2010, while Plaintiff was housed at Big Muddy, his cellmate claimed that Plaintiff struck him in the face (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 11). Both inmates were placed in segregation while the incident was investigated. Plaintiff was charged with the offense of Assaulting any Person (102), and after a disciplinary hearing, was found guilty of the infraction. He was initially sanctioned with 90 days in segregation, 90 days C-grade and loss of gym and yard privileges, and lost 30 days of good conduct credit. Id. He was also ordered to be transferred to a Level 2 (higher security) facility.
Plaintiff's offense was later reduced to Fighting (301), and his punishment was reduced to 30 days segregation, 30 days C-grade and loss of privileges, and no loss of good conduct credit (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 16-17). These reductions were to have taken effect on May 12, 2010. However, Plaintiff was not released from segregation until June 10, 2010, after he was transferred to Pinckneyville. After Plaintiff filed a grievance over the error, the Administrative Review Board ordered his disciplinary record to be corrected (Doc. 1, p. 16).
Plaintiff seeks damages for the excess time he was forced to serve in segregation after he should have been released, as well as compensation for his lost state pay. He also complains that Defendants ignored his requests to investigate and rectify his ...