Case law

Ludwick v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 4, 2025

Miller clearly had no knowledge of this as Mrs. Fauber contends. … In sum, the Magistrate Judge concludes the Fifth District’s decision as to the claims raised in Ground Two is not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent and therefore Ground

Layne v. Thouroughman

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

And finally, they say that “[e]ven if the Court construes Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their individual capacity, the Defendants are entitled to absolute and/or qualified immunity.” (Id.). … Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123 (1988) (actions undertaken by final decisionmakers may suffice to establish policy or custom for Monell purposes (citing Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986))).

Mareiners, LLC v. Anomatic Corporation

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 2023

Plaintiff now maintains that “both the overall method and individual elements of that method qualify as trade secrets.” (Doc. 27 at 11). … Additionally, until Plaintiff has clearly articulated its trade secrets, Defendant has no barometer to assess which requested discovery is relevant.

Bonds v. Berne Union Local Schools

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 17, 2021

Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires courts to dismiss any action that: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … The Sixth Circuit has held that “[i]t is clearly established that the Constitution recognizes both a protectible procedural due process interest in parenting a child and a substantive fundamental right to raise one’s child

Wilds v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institute

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 15, 2024

And even when a petitioner invokes Supreme Court precedent, mere dicta, or even holdings framed at a “high level of generality,” do not qualify as clearly established federal law for AEDPA purposes and therefore cannot … As noted above, under AEDPA, a habeas petitioner must exhaust all his “constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v.

J.P. v. Taft

439 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 21, 2006

Robinson, 914 F.2d 486, 492 (4th Cir.1990) (finding that there is no clearly established right to a “hot shower” in prison). … Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires district courts to screen prisoner complaints in order to dismiss those that are frivolous, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

Alford v. Chambers-Smith

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

In the end, Plaintiff’s Motion is not well taken because “[i]t is well-established that a motion for relief from judgment is not a proper substitute for appeal.” Easterling v. … Plaintiff clearly disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that he did not qualify for the imminent danger exception and therefore could not be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

TERA II, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2024

“A Rule 59(e) motion must present newly discovered evidence or clearly establish a manifest error of law.” D.E. v. John Doe, 834 F.3d 723, 727 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. … The evidence presented by both parties demonstrates that the qualifying language of “commonly known as” introduces ambiguity into how “Utica Shale” should be defined.

Nickols v. Pierce

556 F. Supp. 1280 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 13, 1982

Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief must be denied due to Plaintiffs’ failure to establish the requisites under the four part balancing test of Roth v. … Further, the evidence presented at the hearings clearly indicated that the subject of assessments was raised at several of the public hearings held by Fairborn prior to the submission of the preapplication and application

The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company Benefits Committee v. Jenkins

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 13, 2024

Anyone who received the latter would not qualify as the former. Again, that implies no award of fees and costs could ever be awarded in an interpleader action. … Second, even if one were to rely on policy considerations, the Court is not so sure that such arguments cut clearly against all fee awards.

El-Bey v. Sylvester

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 2022

This court finds that this conduct is the type that constitutes fraud on the court because it clearly tampers with the judicial machinery and subverts the integrity of the court itself.”). … 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.

Prieto Refunjol v. Adducci

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 14, 2020

See, e.g., Scientific Brief, World Health Org., “Immunity passports” in the context of COVID-19 (Apr. 24, 2020), available at https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports- in-the-context-of-covid- … Importantly, these circumstances only establish that the Original Petitioners have standing to bring their claims.

Steele v. Warden London Correctional Facility

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

Constitution Because There Was Insufficient Evidence To Establish the “intimidation” conviction—violated federal due process. … When looking at a police officer’s liability in the civil context, privilege is lost when “a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates [a clearly established] right.” Anderson v.

Horejs v. Kitchin

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 10, 2022

If concerned about this issue, purchaser is encouraged to have a mold inspection by a qualified inspector. … However, Plaintiffs have not established that the Kitchins knew about the mold.

Widmer v. Warden, Correctional Reception Center

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 29, 2023

Ground 1 – Body Mark Testimony6 The state courts unreasonably determined the facts and ruled contrary to or unreasonably applied clearly established … As the Magistrate Judge correctly recognized, there is no Supreme Court case that clearly establishes that due process is violated when unreliable evidence is admitted.8 (Doc. 40 at 12).

National Solid Waste Management Ass'n v. Voinovich

763 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 1, 1991

Before a ruling on a motion for summary judgment can be made, the dispositive issues and factual inquiries relevant to the motion must be clearly delineated. … The State goes to great lengths to cite Interstate Bi-Modal as support for its *257 contention that questions involving the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency qualify for Burford type abstention.

Kramer v. American Electric Power Executive Severance Plan

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 13, 2023

Plaintiff says: (1) the administrative record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the Plan serves a select group; (2) the Court should not consider evidence outside the administrative record; and (3) … (“[W]here the ‘problem is with the integrity of [the plan’s] decision-making process,’ rather than ‘that [a claimant] was denied benefits to which he was clearly entitled,’ the appropriate remedy generally is remand to

Havens-Tobias v. Eagle

127 F. Supp. 2d 889 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 2, 2001

But when a complaint omits facts that, if they existed, would clearly dominate the case, it seems fan.- to assume that those facts do not exist. Scheid v. … Once again, the only premise that the revised allegations establish is that Defendant Eagle was lawfully representing a client in a dispute with Plaintiffs.

Jackson v. Commissioner for Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2021

. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (state agency medical consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.); see also SSR 17-2p (“MCs and PCs are highly qualified medical sources who are also experts … Plaintiff has failed to establish that the ALJ erred.

Tumblin

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 12, 2025

established precedent of the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. … He claims now that those sales were out of his personal “stash,” but the law does not immunize sales of that sort from being considered as evidence of willingness to sell.