The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:
Plaintiff Tyjuan Anderson, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard"), located within this Judicial District. Plaintiff is serving a 50-year sentence for murder. This § 1983 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A
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. This action is subject to summary dismissal.
II. Summary of Complaint Allegations
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1). On January 31, 2010, Plaintiff allegedly assaulted Correctional Officers ("C/Os") Opolka and Hudson in the dining room at Menard (Doc. 1, pp. 9, 12). On February 3, 2010, after a disciplinary hearing, Defendant Parnell imposed the following penalties on Plaintiff for his January 31 assault of C/O Opolka: (a) 1 year demotion to C-grade status, (b) 1 year in disciplinary segregation, (c) revocation of 3 months good conduct credit, (d) 1 year commissary restriction, and (e) 6 months contact visit restriction (Doc. 1, p. 9).
These exact punishments were repeated for Plaintiff's assault of C/O Hudson and ordered to run consecutively (Doc. 1, p. 12). As a result, Plaintiff's total punishment added up to two years in disciplinary segregation and a loss of six months of good conduct credit, for example. Plaintiff asserts that he received improper double punishment when two disciplinary reports were issued for a "single incident" (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Defendant Rednour signed off on these punishments, and Defendant Cowan delivered a copy of the adjustment committee's final report to Plaintiff (Doc. 1, pp. 10, 13). Plaintiff grieved these punishments to various unnamed parties as ...