The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for threshold review of the Plaintiff's civil rights complaint which seeks recovery pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, Pinckneyville, Illinois, asserts that he has been subject to a pattern of practices by the Defendants depriving him of meaningful access to the courts by depriving him of needed access to legal documents and denial of access to needed medical care.
For purposes of review, the Court has divided Plaintiff's claims into two separate counts. In Count 1, Plaintiff alleges that several of the defendants participated in the denial of his meaningful access to the courts by denying him access to his legal documents while in the segregation unit at Pinckneyville Correctional Center from the time of his arrival, March 3, 2010, through his return to general population on May 7, 2010. He asserts that as a result of the denial of access to his legal documents (which he claims were in a lock box stored in the law library at Pinckenyville Correctional Center during the time in question) he was unable to properly plead and prosecute a case he had filed in the Central District of Illinois, West v. Ameji, No. 10-2070, and that action was ultimately dismissed by Hon. Michael McCuskey.
In Count 2, Plaintiff asserts a wholly separate claim for denial of medical care related to pain in his back, leg and foot which he has due to a pinched nerve. Plaintiff assert that various defendants denied his request for specialized medical attention, specifically treatment of his pinched nerve and his request for a discectomy procedure. As a result, he alleges that he suffers constant back pain and has nerve damage such that he cannot control his left foot or leg.
I.THRESHOLD REVIEW "A provision added to the Judicial Code by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 requires the district judge to screen prisoner complaints at the earliest opportunity and dismiss the complaint, in whole or part, if. . . it 'fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.'" Sanders v. Sheahan, 198 F.3d 626 (7th Cir.1999) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)). "Factual allegations [in a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). That is, there must be "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id.
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." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 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). The Seventh Circuit has directed that 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).
"The screening process allows a judge to dismiss, before service on the defendants, a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim." Gay v. Chandra, 682 F.3d 590, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) citing, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a), (b)(1); Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir.2003); Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 781-83 (7th Cir.1999).
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 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.
Plaintiff has named as defendants: E. Hagene, Counselor Lutz, Randy Davis, John Doe, Jane Doe (1), C/O Goldberg, Nurse Melvin, Nurse Castle, Lieutenant Robinson, Sgt. Mcelyea, Lt. Williams, Officer Hill, Officer Huite, Officer Johnson, Officer Coleman, Officer Crabtree, Officer, Risley, Officer Phillips, J. True, Nurse Hill, Billy Pickering, Jane Doe (2), Nurse Flowers, Dr. Jill Wahl, Dennis Larson, Michael Randle, Gladyse C. Taylor, Louis Stricker, Donna Heinemann, Earl Wilson, K. Deen, Sarah Johnson Administrative Review Board Hearing Officer, Terry Anderson, Dr. Garcia, Doctor Lehman, , Charles Dintleman, ...