Case law

Donaldson v. State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 2023

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. … P. 21(a)(2) appropriate where the “witnesses and evidence necessary to establish or support the claims against” against one group of defendants “are not the same as those necessary for the claims against” another group

Lyons v. Jacobs

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 14, 2022

Under “well-established” law, “a police department is simply a division of the city government with no capacity to sue or be sued.” Jones v. City of Middletown, 2006 WL 8442231, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 31, 2006). … immunity.

Hendrix v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution

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

Alternatively, assuming Hendrix intended to assert admitting these convictions was a denial of due process, the Report recommended dismissal because no clearly established U.S. … established U.S.

Burke v. Aramark Correctional Services

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 13, 2025

immunity under the circumstances here. … As to the subjective element, Plaintiff wholly fails to establish this element.

El-Bey v. Sylvester

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 15, 2022

It is well established that it is incumbent upon any litigant, including a pro se prisoner litigant, to keep the Court apprised of his current address. … Brown, 71 F.3d 724, 728-730 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing litigated issues concerning inmates’ use of religious names, including in context of prison mail rules, for purposes of determining qualified immunity).

In Re Cardinal Health Inc. Securities Litigations

528 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 31, 2007

In contrast to the usual method of naming as lead counsel the first attorney to file suit, the PSLRA scheme allows the lead plaintiff to vet and select lead counsel from a pool of qualified attorneys, which should better … The court in Sulzer Hip Prosthesis, 268 F.Supp.2d at 938 n. 45, clearly summarizes the Logan Study: Just before the Court issued this Order, it received notice of the recent publication of a legal periodical that is highly

Reynolds v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

120 F. Supp. 3d 704 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 2015

Chipotle argues that Ochoa cannot establish a prima facie discrimination claim, because she was not qualified for her position. … (Doc. 68, Mobbs Dep. at 114) • Chipotle contends that Reynolds cannot establish a prima facie case, because her inadequate performance shows that she was not qualified for her job.

Leonard v. Hocking Metropolitan Housing Authority

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 27, 2025

The Court shall adopt any recommendations to which the parties do not object except “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. … To state a claim for interference under the FHAA, or a claim of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, Leonard must establish that the Defendants acted with “discriminatory animus.” HDC, LLC v.

George v. Gordon

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 6, 2022

Clearly, Plaintiff has “a reckless disregard for the effect of [his] conduct on [the Court’s] proceedings[,]” and thus acted with willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Schafer, 529 F.3d at 737 (quoting Wu v. T.W. … 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.

Giesman v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 25, 2019

The Court should not grant a motion to strike if “the insufficiency of the defense is not clearly apparent, or if it raises factual issues that should be determined on a hearing on the merits.” … Despite similarities in the claims alleged in the Illinois action and in the instant case, the more narrowly drawn Ohio class could qualify for class certification under the FLSA or FRCP 23.

Ames v. State of Ohio Department of Youth Services

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2023

, and 5, respectively); (2) the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ADEA claim (Count 4); and (3) Plaintiff’s state law claims (Counts 6, 7, and 8) were barred by the State’s sovereign immunity … Therefore, the Court concludes that 18 Ames’s own allegations of two discriminatory adverse events are, on their own, clearly insufficient to establish

Moreland v. Bradshaw

635 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 10, 2009

established Supreme Court law can be subjected to habeas relief only if they are not merely erroneous, but “an unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law, or based on “an unreasonable determination of the … Moreland’s claim regarding insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill was not an unreasonable application of, nor contrary to, clearly-established federal law. Therefore, Mr.

Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Householder

373 F. Supp. 3d 978 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 2019

her as an expert. 358 This Court qualified Dr. … Cho if she had been qualified to do so. 591 Second , Dr.

Feaster

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

Protected conduct under the First Amendment is not limited to formal grievances or petitions; submitting non-frivolous, informal complaints can qualify as protected First Amendment conduct. Maben v. … The plaintiff also bears the initial burden of establishing that the defendant acted with a retaliatory motive. Maben, 887 F.3d at 266.

Ewers v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 12, 2019

The first part of Rule 702 defines who is “qualified” to be an expert; namely, any witness that the court deems to be qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education….” … Rider’s legal conclusions are clearly inappropriate. See DeMerrell v. City of Cheboygan, 206 Fed. Appx. 418, 426-427 (6th Cir. 2006); Berry v.

Tri County Wholesale Distributors, Inc. v. Labatt USA Operating Co.

311 F.R.D. 166 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 14, 2015

None of these circumstances applies clearly to Plaintiffs’ argument for waiver of the bond. … If notice is not received within this ninety-day period, a franchise relationship is established between the parties.

Jones v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 3, 2021

In Painter the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment granted to a police officer on the basis of qualified immunity because the officer did not have the reasonable suspicion necessary under Terry v. … Petitioner is strongly cautioned to prepare any objections to this Substituted Report in clearly legible form. 18

Gillispie v. Miami Township

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 24, 2022

Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006 (6th Cir. 1999) (“fabricating probable cause, thereby effectuating a seizure, would violate a suspect’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures”); … For example, while the facts in Braley clearly established that the officer had probable cause for arresting and prosecuting the plaintiff, that is not the case here based on the allegations. (See, e.g., Doc.

Payton v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 10, 2019

Supporting Facts: Clearly the fact that I accepted a plea deal without any benefits to myself, supports the fact that I was not thinking clearly. … A habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he establishes that (1) “he has been pursuing his rights diligently;” and (2) “some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.”

Honzu v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 17, 2023

Here, “because Ohio has not consented to suits in federal court nor has Congress abrogated Ohio’s immunity under § 1983,” the State of Ohio has immunity for claims against it. Smith v. DeWine, 476 F. … However, “[e]ven opening a handful of privileged letters, [the Sixth Circuit has] said, violates an inmate’s clearly established constitutional right under the First Amendment.” Salem v. Warren, 609 F.