Campbell v. Miller, 835 F. Supp. 2d 458

Campbell has a disability and was found eligible for Ohio vocational rehabilitation services.
She asserts that ORSC denied review by an impartial hearing officer of a state decision and that dismissing appeals violates the Rehabilitation Act and due process.
She signed an Individualized Plan of Employment (IPE) in July 2009 for job development/placement and related services.
Her case was closed on November 23, 2010 after meetings with VRP3 staff when options were limited.
She learned of the closure in January 2011, requested an appeal extension, which ORSC denied as untimely, triggering this federal suit for declaratory and prospective relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §722(c)(5)(J) provides an express private right of action.	Campbell argues §722(c)(5)(J) creates a private right of action.	Miller contends §722(c)(5)(J) does not create an express private right of action.	No express private right of action established.
Whether §722 implies a private right of action.	Campbell claims an implied right under the Act.	Miller argues no implied right exists under Cort v. Ash framework.	No implied private right of action found.
Whether §1983 provides a remedy for due process claims against state officials.	Campbell relies on §1983 for procedural due process.	Defendant contends no federal rights executeable via §1983 are conferred by the Rehabilitation Act.	§1983 claim fails because Rehabilitation Act §722 lacks rights-creating language.
Whether Eleventh Amendment bars suit against the state official.	Campbell seeks prospective injunctive relief against a state official.	Defendant argues Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the action.	Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective injunctive relief against state officials.
Whether Campbell has a protected property interest entitled to due process.	She asserts entitlement to vocational services under the Act.	No entitlement to funds or services is conferred; no property interest exists.	No property interest; due process claim dismissed.

Jackie S. v. Connelly, 442 F. Supp. 2d 503 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (recognizes Ex parte Young for prospective relief and analyzes §722 scope)
Mallett v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehab., 130 F.3d 1245 (7th Cir. 1997) (pre-1998 view on private rights under §722)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (rights-creating language required for §1983 claims)
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) (four-factor test for implied private rights of action)
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (text/structure lacking rights-creating language undermines implied rights)
Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2005) (discusses limits of §1983 when statute lacks rights-creating language)