Alim v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
IBRAHIM ALIM, )
)
CASE NO. 1:26-cv-01242-MJH
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
JUDGE MICHAEL J.
HENDERSHOT
)
vs. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT CLEVELAND
CLINIC POLICE
DEPARTMENT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS
CLEVELAND CLINIC
FOUNDATION, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS. )
Plaintiff Ibrahim Alim sued the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Cleveland
Clinic Police Department, and others, claiming that they violated the Fourth
Amendment and various Ohio statutes and common-law doctrines. The
Department responded that it is not sui juris and moved to dismiss. [R.21.] In
English, the Department argues that it cannot sue or be sued. For the reasons
outlined below, the Court grants the motion.
Case: 1:26-cv-01242-MJH Doc #: 29 Filed: 10/13/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
One preliminary note. Although the docket labels one of Alim’s filings a
“reply” to this motion to dismiss, Alim titled that filing as a reply supporting
his requested preliminary injunction. [R.27.] Beyond the title, that filing
addresses the preliminary injunction alone and does not engage with the
Department’s argument that it is not suable. [See id.] So in name and in
substance, Alim has not addressed the Department’s motion to dismiss.
Perhaps Alim’s silence is prescient. The Sixth Circuit often holds that sub-
units of suable entities, both public and private, are not themselves suable.
See, e.g., Carmichael v. City of Cleveland, 571 Fed. Appx. 426, 435 (6th Cir.
2014) (county sheriff’s department); Warman v. Mount St. Joseph Univ., 144
F.4th 880, 891 (6th Cir. 2025) (private campus police department). And courts
in this District apply that rule to private hospitals’ police departments. See,
e.g., King-Malone v. King, No. 5:25-cv-1776, 2025 WL 3250904, at *5 (N.D. Ohio
Nov. 21, 2025). Likewise here. The Department is merely a unit of the Clinic,
and Alim points to no statute making it suable under Ohio law. In fact, the
statute authorizing hospitals to have a police force does not say that such
departments are suable. See R.C. 4973.17(D). So, the Department cannot “sue
or be sued.” King-Malone, 2025 WL 3250904, at *5.
When a litigant sues a non-suable entity, the complaint fails the plausibility
threshold tested in a motion to dismiss. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
677–79 (2009) (plausibility threshold). And the Sixth Circuit and courts in this
District frequently affirm or grant relief for that exact reason. See, e.g.,
Case: 1:26-cv-01242-MJH Doc #: 29 Filed: 10/13/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
Sullivan v. Hamilton Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas, No. 23-3734, 2024 WL
4109396, at *3 (6th Cir. July 29, 2024) (county court); Brinkley v. Ne. Ohio
Corr. Ctr., No. 4:26-cv-557, 2026 WL 2279333, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2026)
(private prison facility); Urb. Necessities 1 Stop Shop v. City of Cleveland, No.
1:22-cv-2014, 2023 WL 6383825, at *2-3 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2023) (city
departments). Alim’s claim against the Department fits that mold.
Because the Department cannot be sued, any amendment Alim might make
to the complaint regarding the Department would be futile. And that futility
counsels dismissing the Department with prejudice. See Warman, 144 F.4th
at 886, 892. Therefore, the Court grants the Department’s motion and
dismisses it from this action.
SO ORDERED
Dated: October 13, 2026 s/ Michael J. Hendershot
HONORABLE MICHAEL J. HENDERSHOT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 1:26-cv-01242-MJH Doc #: 29 Filed: 10/13/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>