The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge:
Plaintiff Ardamis Darrell Sims brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on incidents that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Pinckneyville Correctional Center ("Pinckneyville") and Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville"). Plaintiff filed this action while he was incarcerated at Stateville (Doc. 1). Since that time, he informed the Court that he had been transferred to the Cook County Jail (Doc. 16). It thus appears that Plaintiff has completed his original sentence that forms the basis for this complaint. This case was initially filed in the Northern District of Illinois, and Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted there (Doc. 5).
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 any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff named Defendants Jorge Montes, Juan Tellez, and Kim Butler in his complaint.
Through an error, they were not included in the caption, and Defendants not named by Plaintiff were inadvertently added to the caption. The Clerk is directed to amend the caption as is reflected in this Order.
The following allegations are taken from Plaintiff's first amended pro se complaint (Doc. 9). Plaintiff was arrested on August 31, 2006, and sentenced to two years in prison on January 25, 2007. Plaintiff's maximum discharge date was March 27, 2008. He was released on parole on March 27, 2007, yet was arrested again on April 12, 2007. Plaintiff remained in Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") custody as a "pending violator." He was housed at Pinckneyville in June of 2007, yet was transported back and forth to Stateville due to court writs pertaining to his second case. Plaintiff was only able to see the parole board at Pinckneyville. He remained on court writs ...