Smith v. State of Ohio Rehabilitation and Corrections, 2:15-cv-01272

James Smith, a pro se state inmate, filed a § 1983 complaint alleging Correctional Officer Herren used excessive force against him while at Madison Correctional Institution (MCI).
Defendants named: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), Madison Correctional Institution (MCI), and Officer Herren.
Smith was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the statutory partial filing-fee process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
The Court performed an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A to identify frivolous or noncognizable claims.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of ODRC and MCI based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and because state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983; recommended service on Herren and permitted Smith to proceed on his excessive-force claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ODRC and MCI can be sued for monetary damages under § 1983	Smith sues the agencies for the alleged excessive force incident	ODRC and MCI (as state entities) are immune under the Eleventh Amendment and are not "persons" under § 1983	Dismissed ODRC and MCI: Eleventh Amendment bars suit and they are not § 1983 persons
Whether the Complaint survives initial screening for failure to state a claim	Smith alleges facts supporting an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Officer Herren	Defendants argue sovereign immunity and statutory limits on § 1983 liability for state agencies	Complaint allowed to proceed against Officer Herren; agencies dismissed
Application of in forma pauperis fee rules	Smith sought IFP and submitted certified trust account statement	Court to follow 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) to collect partial and ongoing payments	IFP granted; prison to remit initial and periodic payments per § 1915(b)
Service and response procedure for individual defendant	Smith requests that Herren be served and required to respond	Marshal to serve Herren and Herren must answer per usual federal rules	Marshal ordered to serve Herren; Herren must answer within 45 days

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (explaining § 1915 screening and curbing frivolous suits)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (standards for dismissing frivolous claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard — plausibility requirement)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard — requiring factual plausibility)
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment limits suits against states)
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979) (§ 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state agencies are not "persons" under § 1983)
Mixon v. State of Ohio, 193 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1999) (state sovereign immunity in federal court)
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997) (procedures for collecting filing fees from prisoners)