Alexis Szandora Millhouse aka Justin Dean Millhouse II v. Dr. Aradhana Gill, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio conducts sua sponte screening of a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning treatment and accommodations for gender dysphoria. The court permits the plaintiff to proceed on specified Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against certain defendants, while recommending dismissal of retaliation claims, claims against unnamed defendants, claims based solely on ODRC policy violations, and official-capacity claims for monetary relief. The document is an order and report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant Shoop or any other named defendant was personally involved in the alleged retaliation and did not allege a retaliatory policy.
2. Alleged violations of ODRC policy, standing alone, do not state a claim under § 1983.
3. The complaint's claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities were subject to dismissal under the Eleventh Amendment.
4. The complaint plausibly stated, for purposes of preliminary screening, specified Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims concerning strip searches, denial of electrolysis and sex-reassignment surgery, restrictions on makeup and feminine toiletries, and continued housing at CCI.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Shoop or any other named defendant.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendant Shoop based on alleged strip searches by male officers.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against the medical and ODRC defendants based on denial of electrolysis and sex-reassignment surgery.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly stated Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendant Shoop based on alleged restrictions on makeup and feminine toiletries.
5. Whether the complaint plausibly stated Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on Plaintiff's continued placement at a male correctional facility.
6. Whether claims against unnamed individuals, claims based solely on ODRC policy violations, and official-capacity claims for monetary relief should be dismissed at screening.

Disposition

other