The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jackson, an inmate in Stateville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is serving a twenty-eight year sentence for felony sexual assault. 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.
These facts are taken from Plaintiff's complaint. In 2010, Plaintiff noticed blood in his stool. Defendant Dr. Fahim advised him that he had hemorrhoids and prescribed him medication. For six to seven months, Plaintiff remained on this medication and underwent physical examinations by Defendant Fahim. Finally, Plaintiff visited a hospital without the prison. There Plaintiff learned that he had not had hemorrhoids, but that the blood was due to bleeding in his lower stomach as a result of the soy diet. Plaintiff states that after he returned to Stateville, Defendant Fahim refused to fill the prescription written by the hospital physician. Three or four months later, Dr. Kohring finally filled the prescription for Plaintiff.
Plaintiff also alleges that on October 4, 2011, Defendant Nursing Supervisor Janette Kinkade responded to Plaintiff's request for a non-soy diet. She refused his request, stating that "we are not able to provide specialized diets to our offenders" (Doc. 1, p. 6). On October 19, 2011, Defendant Kinkade again addressed Plaintiff's request by stating "if a diet change is required due to health issues than you will have to obtain a doctor's order for such diet" (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff notes that Defendant Kinkade did not attempt to acquire the order from the physician. Defendant Kinkade responded to another request by stating that she would not provide the diet and that "I would recommend that you avoid foods that will irritate your stomach" (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Sarah Johnson, chairperson of the Administrative Review Board, refused to address his grievances. Plaintiff filed a grievance pertaining to the soy diet on June 7, 2011. He received a denial on June 14, 2011, and appealed on June 16, 2011.
Plaintiff requests as relief an injunction preventing the serving of soy and processed foods, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, a jury trial, and any ...