The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff takes issue with being placed in a "suicide watch cell," the conditions of his confinement, being denied food, and being held in segregation for 14 days beyond the prescribed period of punishment. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint.
Section 1915A(b) provides:
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 Section 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff did not use any punctuation, instead presenting his allegations as one very long sentence. Based on the allegations of the complaint and information gleaned from the attached exhibits, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into six counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.
Count 1: Against Lt. Stuck for placing Plaintiff in a suicide watch cell on October 17, 2012, without cause, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
Count 2: Against Lt. Stuck for placing Plaintiff in an unsanitary, unlit suicide watch cell on October 17, 2012, for a two-day period, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 3: Against Lt. Stuck for placing Plaintiff a cell with no water or working plumbing on October 30, 2012, "for more than two days," in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 4: Against Lt. Stuck for threatening not to feed Plaintiff, and against C/O Hanson for not feeding Plaintiff on October 23, 2012-all ...