Ashraf v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction
2:19-cv-03575
| S.D. Ohio | Feb 27, 2020Background
- Pro se state inmate Ashraf filed suit alleging carbon monoxide exposure at Noble Correctional Institution (NCI) caused breathing problems and worsened his rheumatoid arthritis; he alleges hospital treatment and an increased Humira dosing schedule.
- Ashraf sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction medical unit (ODRC Medical) and NCI Medical under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) violations and sought $150,000; he also alleged NCI’s mailroom withheld legal mail.
- The magistrate had previously recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim; district judge allowed leave to amend and Ashraf filed an amended complaint.
- Ashraf invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1442 in his amended complaint attempting to avoid state immunity.
- Magistrate Judge Deavers denied appointment of counsel without prejudice and conducted an initial screen under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, recommending dismissal in full primarily on Eleventh Amendment/state-immunity and § 1983 "person" grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff can pursue § 1983 damages against ODRC Medical and NCI Medical | Ashraf contends the medical units are proper defendants for Eighth Amendment damages arising from CO exposure | State entities argue Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars suits for damages and the medical units are arms of the State, not § 1983 "persons" | Dismissed: Eleventh Amendment bars damages; entities not "persons" under § 1983 |
| Whether the amended complaint states a plausible Eighth Amendment claim | Ashraf alleges CO exposure caused serious harm (hospitalization, increased medication) | Defendants point to insufficient, conclusory pleading and immunity; court applies Rule 8/Twombly/Iqbal standards under § 1915 screening | Dismissed: Amended complaint fails to state a plausible claim against the named state medical entities (and immunity resolves claim) |
| Whether invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1442 avoids Eleventh Amendment immunity | Ashraf attempted to invoke § 1442 to allow federal prosecution of a federal agency or avoid immunity | Defendants rely on established Eleventh Amendment and § 1983 law; court treats § 1442 invocation as insufficient to overcome immunity | Rejected: § 1442 invocation does not overcome sovereign immunity for these state medical units |
| Request for appointment of counsel | Ashraf requested court-appointed counsel to pursue his claims | Defendants did not contest appointment; court evaluates exceptional-circumstances standard | Denied without prejudice: no exceptional circumstances shown at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (discusses in forma pauperis screening and dismissal of frivolous suits)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (establishes standard for frivolous claims under § 1915)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits against state entities)
- Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (§ 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Diaz v. Department of Corrections, 703 F.3d 956 (state departments and subunits are not § 1983 "persons")
- Harrison v. Michigan, 722 F.3d 768 (discusses Eleventh Amendment and § 1983 limits)
- Mixon v. State of Ohio, 193 F.3d 389 (state sovereign immunity in federal court)