Fishbein v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections, 2:13-cv-00650

Plaintiff Robert J. Fishbein, a pro se state inmate at North Central Correctional Complex (NCCC), filed a § 1983 suit alleging First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections (ODRC), Management & Training Corporation (MTC), and corrections officer Matthew King.
The Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A to identify frivolous, malicious, or non‑cognizable claims.
Fishbein seeks monetary damages from ODRC and alleges conditions and incidents at NCCC involving MTC and Officer King.
The Magistrate concluded ODRC is an arm of the State of Ohio and not a "person" under § 1983; Ohio has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity to suits for monetary damages.
Because the remaining defendants and the events arise in Marion County (outside the Southern District of Ohio), the Magistrate found venue in this district improper and recommended transfer to the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division at Toledo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ODRC is subject to money damages under § 1983	Fishbein seeks monetary relief from ODRC for alleged constitutional violations	ODRC is a state instrumentality entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and is not a "person" under § 1983	Dismissed ODRC from the action with prejudice (Eleventh Amendment immunity; not a § 1983 person)
Whether the complaint survives initial screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A	Fishbein asserts constitutional claims against multiple defendants based on incidents at NCCC	Defendants (and the court) argue pleading must be plausible and non‑conclusory under Rule 8 and § 1915 screening standards	Magistrate applied Rule 12(b)(6)/Iqbal–Twombly standards; dismissed ODRC claims as noncognizable; other claims not dismissed on screening here
Whether this District is proper venue	Fishbein filed in Southern District of Ohio	Defendants and court note defendants and events are in Marion County (Northern District, Western Division at Toledo)	Magistrate recommended transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division at Toledo under §§ 1406/1404(a)
Whether dismissal or transfer is the appropriate disposition for non‑venue claims	Fishbein seeks to proceed in current forum	Court must either dismiss or transfer where venue is improper	Magistrate recommended transfer of remaining claims and dismissal only as to ODRC

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (IFP screening to curb frivolous suits)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous‑suit doctrine under IFP statute)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must rise above speculation)
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standards to § 1915A/§ 1915(e) screening)
Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2009) (construing pro se pleadings and inferences)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (state sovereign immunity principles)
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979) (§ 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Mixon v. State of Ohio, 193 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1999) (Ohio has not waived sovereign immunity in federal court)
Diaz v. Department of Corrections, 703 F.3d 956 (6th Cir. 2013) (state departments not § 1983 "persons")