Now come Defendants Board of Trustees of the Columbus Metropolitan Library (the "Board"), Larry Black and Vonzell Johnson (collectively referred to as "Defendants"), by and through counsel and for their Answer admit, deny and state as follows:

1. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to confirm or deny the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. [Complaint]

2. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint, except that they admit that the Board is authorized to publish regulations for the Library. In further response, Defendants state that paragraph 2 contains assertions of law for which no answer is required. [Complaint]

3. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except that they admit that Mr. Black is the Executive Director of the Columbus Metropolitan Library. [Complaint]

4. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint, except that they admit the Mr. Johnson is an assistant manager of security for the Columbus Metropolitan Library. [Complaint]

5. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to confirm or deny the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. [Complaint]

6. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint, except that they admit that Plaintiff was evicted from the Columbus Metropolitan Library for refusing to wear shoes. [Complaint]

7. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint, except that they admit that Plaintiff was informed that, in order to use the library facilities, he would have to wear shoes. [Complaint]

8. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint, except that they admit that Plaintiff was asked to leave the library because he refused to wear shoes. [Complaint]

9. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint, except that they admit that Plaintiff was asked to leave the library because he was not wearing shoes and further state that Plaintiff was issued a one-day eviction. [Complaint]

10. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

11. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

12. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint, except that they admit that the policy requiring shoes also allows for a warning, a request to leave, or a request to wear shoes. [Complaint]

13. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

14. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to confirm or deny the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and therefore deny the same. [Complaint]

15. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint, except that they admit that Plaintiff wrote letters to Defendant Black. In further response, Defendants state that Plaintiff's letters speak for themselves. [Complaint]

16. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint, except that they admit that Plaintiff wrote to the Board and that Mr. Swaddling responded to Plaintiff's letter. In further response, Defendants state that such correspondence speaks for itself. [Complaint]

17. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint, except that they admit that Defendant Black obtained an opinion from the Franklin County Prosecutor's office. In further response, Defendants state that such opinion speaks for itself. [Complaint]

18. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, except that they admit that Plaintiff sent a letter to Mr. Black and Mr. Black responded. In further response, Defendants state that such correspondence speaks for itself. [Complaint]

19. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Complaint, except that Defendants admit that this Court has jurisdiction as Plaintiff is purporting to bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by asserting claims under the United States Constitution. [Complaint]

20. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

21. For their response to paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully stated herein. [Complaint]

22. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

23. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

24. For their response to paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1 through 23 as if fully states herein. [Complaint]

25. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

26. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

27. For their response to paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully states herein. [Complaint]

28. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

29. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

30. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

31. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 31 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

32. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Complaint. [Complaint]

33. Defendants deny each and every allegation not expressly and specifically admitted herein as true.

34. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

35. Plaintiff's actions, and not those of Defendants, are the proximate, contributing and intervening cause of the harm, if any, Plaintiff suffered.

36. The policy requiring shoes is enforce without regard to any class-based distinction.

37. Defendants acted at all times in good faith and with reasonable grounds for believing that their actions were authorized by law, and at no time did they willfully violate §1983 or any other state or federal Constitutional provision.

38. The Defendants are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

39. The policy requiring Library patrons to wear shoes is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective.

40. The policy requiring Library patrons to wear shoes is narrowly tailored to a substantial government interest.

41. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendants pray that

1. Judgment be rendered in their favor and against Plaintiff;

2. This Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice;

3. Defendants be awarded its costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney's fees, and

4. This Court grant to Defendants such other relief as justice requires.

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, upon Robert A. Neinast, Plaintiff, 8617 Ashford Lane, Pickerington, Ohio 43147, this 24th day of May, 2001.