Case law

Heath v. DeCourcy

704 F. Supp. 799 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 15, 1988

The purpose of the Consent Decree and the modifications thereto is to place inmates at a minimal risk of injury or harm while allowing defendants to utilize available cells within the established capacity limit of the Justice … The law clearly and logically imposes the obligation to operate the jail upon the local elected officials who are in the best position to manage their correctional facility.

Wood v. Wallace

825 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 1993

Under section 1396n(c)(1) of the Medicaid Act, the Secre *181 tary may, by waiver, approve a State plan to provide home and community based services to individuals who would otherwise qualify for hospitalization or institutionalization … A thorough analysis of this statute and its related regulations leads us to conclude that the provisions of the Medicare Act’s Waiver Program establish rights actionable under section 1983.

Cochran

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 22, 2025

To survive to the discovery phase, a plaintiff need only establish that the pleadings be plausible, not probable. Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. … Likewise, he also has not met the requirements to qualify under §2733.06 as he is not claiming that he is entitled to any public office, nor has he given security before bringing his claims.

Ladd

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 7, 2026

But the Court is not required to accept factual allegations that are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. App’x 427, 429–30 (6th Cir. 2009). … “Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).

Vitt v. City of Cincinnati

250 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 18, 2002

Under this approach, Plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination by proving: 1) she is a member of a protected class; 2) she was qualified for … Such decisions to deny or grant training or to permit attendance at seminars clearly fall within the realm of the employer’s business judgment.

ALEX PENLAND v. CHAMBERS-SMITH, et al.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 2026

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest that clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010), or “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F.

Robinson v. Butler

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2021

BACKGROUND As established, Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner currently incarcerated at Madison Correctional Institution. (Doc. 1 at 3). … However, a court is not required to accept factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true when such factual allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F.

Tuskegee Alumni Housing Foundation, Inc. v. National Homeps Construction Corp.

450 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 24, 1978

If, on the other hand, you do not conclude that this was established by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find that there was not an accord and satisfaction. … Even if plaintiff’s argument is qualified by limiting it to all outstanding claims arising out of the original agreement, this Court cannot agree.

Nouri v. State of Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 7, 2023

) when Congress has clearly and expressly abrogated the state’s immunity. … Here, the State of Ohio has not waived its sovereign immunity and has not consented to this suit. Congress has not abrogated the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 or in the Declaratory Judgement Act.

Mitchell v. Fujitec America, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 8, 2021

Importantly, though, the privilege is qualified, not absolute. An absolute privilege would completely immunize a speaker who allegedly committed defamation. … Mitchell Has Pled Sufficient Facts To Overcome The Qualified Immunity Defense At The Pleading Stage.

Green v. U.S. Department of Education

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 8, 2021

Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. … Someone By the name of Michael Goodman He was trying to pay It and get credit on his credit Despite them try to assisting the person they choose to keep It on My name clearly It’s fraud.

Feldman v. City of Cincinnati

20 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 1937

Plaintiff in error seems to consider that he should be immune from this inconvenience and possible loss because of the existence of the constitutional provisions before quoted. … Neither may that business be likened to a mercantile establishment where the public is invited to shop.

Glowka

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 10, 2025

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. … All three judicial officers clearly acted within their judicial authority in ruling on the underlying state court case(s).

McNeil v. Trinity Health Corporation

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 8, 2021

Work Product Doctrine Standard The work product doctrine “is ‘not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party … Pertinent here, Defendants, as the ones claiming work product protection, bear the burden of establishing that each withheld document was prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Habtemariam-Brown

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 7, 2026

Further, neither the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services nor the Ohio Department of Medicaid qualify as “person” for purposes of liability under §1983. See Collins v. … Finally, the State of Ohio has not consented to be sued, and Congress has not abrogated Ohio’s sovereign immunity to be sued in such a suit in federal court. See S & M Brands, Inc. v.

Perry v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 2024

But the Magistrate Judge determined that Defendants Dofflemyer and Pierce, who were personally involved, have not shown that their use of force was reasonable, nor that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In short, the evidence clearly shows that Plaintiff had no apparent injuries when evaluated by medical personnel at the prison and that he refused medical treatment on June 25. Brooks v.

Thompson v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 22, 2025

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Claims against the State of Ohio are also barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Golden v. Correctional Officer Hubner

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 27, 2024

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest that clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hubner is an intentional tortfeasor who assaulted him, acted in bad faith and is not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at PageID 127-30.)

Baker

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 5, 2026

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … However, Plaintiff has not established any of the four avenues that would make Heck inapplicable to his case.

Bibb v. The U.S. District Court Judge Edmund J. Sargus's Court

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 31, 2024

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. DLX, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir.2004). … The record clearly shows that Judge Sargus acted in good faith in dismissing Plaintiff’s prior case (ECF No. 20). Under Fed R.