MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
Plaintiff Cesar Ramirez, serving a ten year sentence for Home Invasion and a consecutive six year term for predatory sexual assault, is currently incarcerated at Big Muddy Correctional Center ("Big Muddy"). Plaintiff has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint.
1. The Standard of Review
In relevant part, 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.
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). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross "the line between possibility and plausibility. Id . at 557. 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).
2. The Complaint
The named defendants are Warden Zachary Roecheman, Food Services Supervisor Zindy Gee, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections Salvador Anthony Godinez, and Correctional Officer ("C/O") Nalley; there are also five unidentified defendants. Plaintiff's four principal contentions are: (1) he should have been released from prison on June 28, 2011, after he served 85% of his sentence, but Defendants Roecheman, Gee and Godinez refused to serve Plaintiff's release papers, improperly enforced a false parole violation and revoked good conduct credits to justify keeping him in custody; (2) "the defendants, " through lieutenants, C/O's and Dietary staff, have harassed and punished Plaintiff by refusing to release him, revoking good conduct credits, writing false disciplinary tickets, calling him "child raper, " and repeatedly "shaking down" his cell, destroying and taking his property; (3) "the defendants" and a corrupt Adjustment Committee, have denied Plaintiff due process, falsely convicting him and punishing him with six months in segregation; and (4) on May 25, 2013, Defendant C/O Nalley and the five unidentified defendants strip searched Plaintiff in a demeaning manner, beat him and then refused to get him medical treatment.
Based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into the four counts summarized below. 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: Defendants Roecheman, Gee and Godinez failed to release Plaintiff Ramirez from prison on June 28, 2011, when they improperly enforced a false parole violation and revoked good conduct credits, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Plaintiff's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;
Count 2: All defendants, by and through other prison staff, harassed and punished Plaintiff by refusing to release him, revoking his good conduct credits, writing false disciplinary tickets, calling him "child raper, " repeatedly "shaking down" his cell, destroying and taking his property, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 3: All defendants, with the approval of Defendant Roecheman, convicted Plaintiff of a false disciplinary charge in a "fixed" hearing, in violation of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and
Count 4: On May 25, 2013, Defendant C/O Nalley and the five unidentified defendants strip searched Plaintiff in a demeaning manner, beat him and then refused to get him medical ...