The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Dinarr Whiteside, an inmate in Vienna Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Section 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff alleges that prior to April 19, 2012, he repeatedly made "complaints" to Illinois Department of Corrections Director S.A. Godinez about being retaliated against. Godinez never took any action.
On April 19, 2012, Sgt. Folsom refused Plaintiff's request to retrieve some personal property from Plaintiff's property box. Plaintiff then asked Sgt. Folsom for a grievance form. Not only did Folsom refuse to give Plaintiff the form, he then handcuffed Plaintiff- rhetorically asking Plaintiff, "So, you want to f*** with me?"-and then physically assaulted him, slamming Plaintiff about, choking him and "busting" Plaintiff's chin. C/O McIntruf watched with his hands in the air, asking, "What's going on here?" C/O Stalling, who was apparently nearby, stepped up to wipe Plaintiff's blood from the wall and declared that he had not seen anything.
Plaintiff was placed in a segregation cell. As Plaintiff was bleeding and in need of medical attention, C/O Bunch taunted him with grievance forms. Lt. Hunter and LPN David Lewis came to the cell and examined Plaintiff, but never got Plaintiff anything for his pain.
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into four 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 ...