Thompson v. Dezarn et al
Plaintiff: Anthony Thompson
Defendant: Officer Nicholas R. Dezarn P0002 doing business as Cincinnati Police Department, Officer William P. Goetz P0100 doing business as Cincinnati Police Department, Officer Myles J. ABT P0076 doing business as Cincinnati Police Department, Officer Cole D. Dunahay doing business as Cincinnati Police Department, Judge Jennifer L. Branch doing business as Hamilton County Common Pleas Court and all Successors and Jordan Blake doing business as Hamilton County Prosecutors Officers and Successors
Case Number: 1:2024cv00002
Filed: January 2, 2024
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Presiding Judge: Jeffery P Hopkins
Referring Judge: Karen L Litkovitz
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 13, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 13, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Having screened the Complaint (Doc. 1-1) under 28 U.S.C. 1915, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS all the claims in this case. Specifically, the Court should dismiss: 1. All claims against Judge Branch, as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, sovereign immunity, the statutory language of 1983, Younger abstention, and/or because all the federal claims have been dismissed. 2. Any claims against the Cincinnati Police Department, the Hamilton County Prosecutors Office, and the State of Ohio, as these Defendants are not persons under 1983 and the State is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. 3. Any claims attempting to bring federal criminal charges against any Defendant. 4. All claims against Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Blake, as no plausible claim is stated against him or her. 5. All claims against Officers Dezarn, Goetz, Abt, and Dunahay, on the basis of Younger abstention. The Undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the Court CERTIFY pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that, for the reasons discussed above, an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendations would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, deny Plaintiff leave to appeal it in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 2/27/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 02/12/2024. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
February 13, 2024 Filing 3 COMPLAINT against Jordan Blake, Jennifer L. Branch, Nicholas R. Dezarn, Cole D. Dunahay, William P. Goetz, Myles J., filed by Anthony Thompson. (bjc)
February 13, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 2 ORDER granting #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 02/12/2024. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
January 2, 2024 Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Anthony Thompson. (Attachments: #1 Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Service Documents) (bjc)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Thompson v. Dezarn et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Anthony Thompson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Officer Nicholas R. Dezarn P0002 doing business as Cincinnati Police Department
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Officer William P. Goetz P0100 doing business as Cincinnati Police Department
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Officer Myles J. ABT P0076 doing business as Cincinnati Police Department
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Officer Cole D. Dunahay doing business as Cincinnati Police Department
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Judge Jennifer L. Branch doing business as Hamilton County Common Pleas Court and all Successors
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jordan Blake doing business as Hamilton County Prosecutors Officers and Successors
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?