The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Ollie ("Ollie"), an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center ("Lawrence") serving a fifteen year sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He complains of events occurring while he was a pretrial detainee at Jackson County Jail.
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 that portions of Plaintiff's claims are subject to dismissal.
Facts Alleged in Complaint
On or about June 12, 2009, Plaintiff was reading in the day room of the Jackson County Jail when he and Defendant Cook, a sheriff's deputy, got into a heated conversation. This heated conversation escalated into an assault and Cook along with Defendant Lustig, punched, kicked, and choked Plaintiff. Defendants Huffman, Bludworth and Sayer, all sheriff's deputies, then assisted Cook and Lustig by handcuffing Plaintiff. These five sheriff's deputies repeatedly shocked Plaintiff while he was restrained with a stun gun on Plaintiff's legs, chest, and stomach.
Defendants then dragged Plaintiff to a segregation cell. Yet, as the Defendants dragged Plaintiff, his head repeatedly struck the concrete steps of the cell block. Plaintiff asserts the sheriff's deputies used excessive force and violated his constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
Plaintiff remained in his segregated cell, shoeless, for six days. During these six days Plaintiff was denied medical treatment for the injuries he sustained during his beating and restraint. Plaintiff informed Cook, Lustig, Bludworth and Hoffman of his injuries and need for medical care. Yet Plaintiff never received any treatment until his initial appearance on related state assault charges, at which time the presiding judge ...