The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:
Plaintiff Mark Carroll, an inmate at Graham Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on incidents that occurred while Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at Clinton County Jail ("Clinton"). Plaintiff is serving a four year sentence for forgery. 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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. The Complaint
Plaintiff's complaint names Sheriff Mike Kerrkee (Clinton County), Circuit Judge Dennis Middendorff, Clinton County Jail, and the Clinton County State's Attorney's Office, who Plaintiff claims each violated his constitutional rights.
On October 28, 2010, Plaintiff was detained at Clinton, where an unnamed guard conducted a routine medical screening. Plaintiff informed this individual that he had bipolar disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder, and needed to see a psychologist or psychiatrist about his medication. Plaintiff also requested to see a doctor about a rash. Plaintiff claims that he was not granted any access to mental health treatment while at Clinton.
Plaintiff also takes issue with his preliminary hearing, presumably in the Clinton County Circuit Court presided over by Defendant Judge Middendorff. Plaintiff claims that there was no evidence to support the charges brought against him. Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts that the preliminary hearing included testimony from his arresting officer, who ...