The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
Plaintiff Haywood, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center ("Menard") since June 21, 2005, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is serving a fifty-five 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 any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
In Plaintiff's pro se complaint in this case, he alleges that on August 31, 2010, he declared a hunger strike because previous complaints that he was in fear of his life had gone unheeded by Defendant Rednor, the Warden of Menard. On the same day, after throwing his beverages onto the gallery and swearing at Defendant Matt, a corrections officer, he was placed into punitive segregation by unnamed officers. One week later, on September 7, Plaintiff was granted a disciplinary hearing for which he claims he did not receive notice. Plaintiff references Defendant Ashby in the portion of his pleadings pertaining to the hearing but does not describe any particular conduct of this Defendant.
Plaintiff further complains about unclean and unsanitary conditions of his cell, a denial of cleaning supplies and linen as well as inadequate access to the showers. Plaintiff does not provide any further particulars as to the dates of these alleged circumstances nor does he identify any Defendant who was responsible for what he claims are conditions that constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Finally, Plaintiff names Defendant Anderson in the caption of his pleadings but does not specify any unconstitutional conduct for which ...