Case law

Nia

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 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 which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … However, Plaintiff asserts he “clearly at the very beginning” stated he did not want a witness. (Id.). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the evidence used in Conduct Report, Case No.

earl v. Hamilton County Municpal Criminal Court State of Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 10, 2024

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. … “It is firmly established that a municipality, or as in this case a county, cannot be held liable under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.” Gregory v.

Heath v. Baldauf

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 20, 2022

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. … Therefore, although the Court expresses no opinion at this time as to the applicability of sovereign immunity to Plaintiff’s ADA and/or RA claims, see note 7, supra, Defendants are immune from suit under § 1983 in their

Mincy v. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center

715 F. Supp. 2d 770 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 26, 2010

Children’s Hospital assumes for purposes of summary judgment that Mincy can establish a prima facie of retaliation. … Specifically, she offers no rebuttal to Defendant’s arguments that it would be entitled to qualified immunity as any alleged defamatory statements.

Pointer v. Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 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 which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit two years prior to the allegedly retaliatory conduct is simply too remote in time to establish a retaliation claim.

Wagner v. Ciba Corp.

743 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 19, 2010

STANDARD OF REVIEW A participant or beneficiary of an ERISA qualified plan may bring suit in federal court to recover benefits due under the terms of the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B). … The SPD clearly defines Wagner’s rights under the Plan, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Smith v. Manley, Deas, and Kochalski LLC (MDK)

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2022

It is well-established that judges “enjoy judicial immunity from suits arising out of the performance of their judicial functions.” Leech v. DeWeese, 689 F.3d 538, 542 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Brookings v. … In the present case, Judge Ruehlman’s actions qualify him for judicial immunity.

Monroe v. Colvin

989 F. Supp. 2d 612 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 18, 2013

The totality of the medical evidence clearly supports that the claimant is not as severely limited as assessed by this doctor. For example, Dr. … Mathai’s opinion with the other medical evidence of record, and clearly articulated “good reasons” for his conclusion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2). For example, Dr.

Miller v. Hudson

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 5, 2024

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. … Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction.

Williams v. Wright-Patt Credit Union

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 2019

upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). … from suit, or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.

Dealer VSC, Ltd. v. TRICOR Automotive Group- US, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 21, 2022

Further, CaretoLive involved claims brought under the Administrative Procedures Act and a qualified immunity defense had been asserted. … The Court will reconvene the parties to establish a pretrial schedule. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 21, 2022 /s/ Elizabeth A.

Wood v. Williamson

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 20, 2024

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. … And by telling Defendant that she was being “ridiculous,” Plaintiff expressed clearly that he did not respect the instructions given to him by Defendant.

Cunningham v. Miller

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 29, 2024

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. … Cunningham has not alleged the requisite amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction. In addition, Ms. Cunningham and Ms.

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Blume

533 F. Supp. 493 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 7, 1979

Although the legal question underlying 3M’s view of the benefit it received by having “two strings to its bow” is not so clearly established in this Court’s mind as it is in the mind of 3M’s counsel, 23 we find that it was … Lindholz establishes that Mr.

Newbern v. Lake Lorelei, Inc.

308 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 14, 1968

.” § 1983 provides: “Every person who, under color of * * * custom, or usage, * * * subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States * * * to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured … the important thing is that the development contemplates the transition from a corn field to a real estate venture inhabited by (taking the normal ratio of four persons to one family) more than 5,000 people — which would qualify

Huffman v. BRUNSMAN

650 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 14, 2008

To justify a grant of habeas relief under the “contrary to” clause, “a federal court must find a violation of law clearly established by holdings of the Supreme Court, as opposed to its dicta, as of the time of the relevant … A state-court decision involves an unreasonable application of this Court’s clearly established precedents if the state court applies this Court’s precedents to the facts in an objectively unreasonable manner.

Avery v. Jennings

604 F. Supp. 1356 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 16, 1985

Held could not tell without talking to the plaintiff whether she would be qualified to work in his office. Mr. … Plaintiff has failed, therefore, to establish any infringement upon her first or fourteenth amendment rights.

Treesh v. Taft

122 F. Supp. 2d 887 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 16, 2000

According to Defendants, Plaintiffs do not allege or attach any documentation establishing that they did in fact exhaust their administrative remedies. … This claim clearly challenges the “effects” of “actions” that will occur prior to the time when Plaintiffs will actually be executed.

Delafuente v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 20, 2019

(“[F]orce that occurs accidentally does not qualify to be treated as self- defense.”). … This claim does not implicate an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C.§ 2254(d).

Cervantes v. Sugar Creek Packing Co.

210 F.R.D. 611 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 25, 2002

Navarro testified that he was qualified for promotions but less-qualified Caucasians received the positions. Id., pp. 129-30. He recalled two or three Hispanics receiving promotions. Mr. … Defendant argues that plaintiffs have failed to establish that they were qualified for any promotions. The Court concludes that plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality requirement.