# Felder v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · March 20, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10828161

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** March 20, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10828161

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming dismissal of complaint that did not allege with any degree of specificity which of the named defendants were personally involved in or responsible for each alleged violation of federal rights

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KEVIN FELDER ) CASE NO. 1:25 CV 00123
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
)
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF )
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION ) M EMORANDUM OPINION
) AND ORDER
Defendant. )

I. Introduction
Pro se plaintiff Kevin Felder filed this in forma pauperis action, presumably under 42
U.S.C. §1983, against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). (Doc.
No. 1). In the Civil Cover Sheet attached to his complaint, Plaintiff alleges “errors in
administration” as his cause of action. (Doc. No. 1-1). In his brief complaint, Plaintiff appears to
allege that Defendant made an error on his release date. He claims that he prepared to leave
confinement by giving away his property and informing his family, but when “APA arrived, they
[canceled] my release because of legislature the prison was not aware of due to an error [in]
misreading memos.” (Doc. No. 1 at 3). He claims this error caused him embarrassment and
emotional pain and anguish. And for relief, he requests “$500.000.”
II. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). The Court grants
that application.
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.
Ct. 700, 70 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct.
594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). The district court, however, is required to dismiss an in forma
pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328,
109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990);

Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 677-78, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading

must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all
the allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required
to include detailed factual allegations, but he or she must provide more than “an unadorned, the
defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers legal
conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading
standard. Id. The Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1986).
In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.

-2-
1998).
III. Discussion
As an initial matter, the complaint consists only of bare, conclusory assertions, providing
no facts upon which a court could find Defendant engaged in any wrongdoing.
The Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. El Bey v. Roop, 530 F.3d 407, 413 (6th Cir. 2008).

However, the “lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits.” Pilgrim v.
Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Liberal construction for pro se litigants does not
“abrogate basic pleading requirements.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The
Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf
of a pro se plaintiff. See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985)
(District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them or to
construct full claims from sentence fragments. To do so would “require ... [the courts] to explore
exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff ... [and] would ... transform the district court

from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest
arguments and most successful strategies for a party.”) (citation omitted). Although specific facts
are not required, to meet the basic minimum notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s complaint must give the defendants fair notice of
what the plaintiff’s legal claims are and the factual grounds on which they rest. See Bassett v.
Nat’l Collegiate Ath. Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008); see also Scheid v. Fanny Farmer
Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988) (all complaints must contain either direct
or inferential allegations respecting all material elements of some viable legal theory to satisfy

federal notice pleading requirements) (citations omitted).
-3-
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint, even liberally construed, fails to meet the most basic pleading
standard, as his pleading fails to set forth “a short and plain statement of [any] claim showing
that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint is almost
completely devoid of facts. Additionally, the complaint fails to assert a cognizable claim within
the jurisdiction of this Court based on recognized legal authority, and the Court finds there is no
cause of action readily identifiable in the complaint. Plaintiff’s pleading, rather, is nothing more

than a mere “unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678. The complaint therefore fails to meet the minimum pleading requirements of Rule 8 and
must be dismissed on this basis.
Moreover, even if Plaintiff satisfied Rule 8 pleading requirements, to the extent Plaintiff
is asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff’s claims fail. The ODRC is an agency
of the State of Ohio and is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, unless the
State of Ohio has waived its sovereign immunity or consented to be sued in federal court. See
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989).

Congress did not intend that Section 1983 abrogate the State of Ohio’s Eleventh Amendment
immunity, and the State of Ohio has not waived that immunity to suit in federal court. See id. at
66-67; Mixon v. State of Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 397 (6th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the ODRC is
immune from suit. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a plausible civil rights claim against the
ODRC upon which relief may be granted.
Furthermore, although Plaintiff lists “Lorain Correctional staff, Warden, ... correctional
officers and supervisors” as additional defendants in the “Parties” section of the complaint, he
fails to state a claim for relief regarding these purported defendants. A plaintiff cannot establish
the liability of any defendant absent a clear showing that the defendant was personally involved

-4-
in the activities which form the basis of the alleged unconstitutional behavior. Rizzo v. Goode,
423 U.S. 362, 371, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1976); Mullins v. Hainesworth, No. 95-3186,
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 36082, 1995 WL 559381 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 1995). “Because vicarious
liability is inapplicable to. . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official
defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 676. And where individuals are merely named as defendants in a civil rights action

without supporting allegations of specific conduct in the body of the complaint, the complaint is
subject to dismissal even under the liberal construction afforded to pro se plaintiffs. See Gilmore
v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 F. App’x 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Merely listing names in the
caption of the complaint and alleging constitutional violations in the body of the complaint is not
enough to sustain recovery under §1983"); Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th Cir.
2002) (affirming dismissal of complaint that did not allege with any degree of specificity which
of the named defendants were personally involved in or responsible for each alleged violation of
federal rights). Here, Plaintiff does not set forth any allegations specifically connecting any of

the remaining defendants to the purported constitutional violations. Plaintiff therefore fails to
state a plausible civil rights claim against these individuals.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. No. 2) and DISMISSES the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Further, the Court
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be made
in good faith.

-5-
IT ISSO ORDERED.
□□□ Denakd C. Mugent
DONALD C. NUGENT
United States District Judge
DATED: March 20, 2025

-6-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10828161. Public record. Not legal advice.