COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH


ROBERT A. NEINAST
8617 Ashford Lane
Pickerington, OH 43147

Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN LIBRARY
96 S. Grant Ave.
Columbus, OH 43215-4781

and
LARRY D. BLACK
Director of Columbus Metropolitan Library
96 S. Grant Ave.
Columbus, OH 43215-4781

and
VONZELL JOHNSON
Assistant Manager, Security, Columbus Metropolitan Library
96 S. Grant Ave.
Columbus, OH 43215-4781

Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:



Case No. 01 CV 04 3104

Judge Miller








COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND DAMAGES






Now comes Plaintiff Robert A. Neinast, acting pro se, and for his Complaint, respectfully states as follows:

1. Plaintiff Robert A. Neinast is a citizen and a resident of Ohio, residing at 8617 Ashford Lane, Pickerington, OH, and has been a cardholder and user of the Columbus Metropolitan Library at all times relevant herein. [Answer]

2. Defendant Board of Trustees of the Columbus Metropolitan Library ("the Board") is the governing authority for the Columbus Metropolitan Library ("the Library"), organized pursuant to Chapter 3375 of the Ohio Revised Code. The Board is a body politic and corporate. The Board is subject to the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Sections 1, 2, and 11 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and the laws of the United States and State of Ohio. The Board is authorized under Section 3375.40(H) of the Ohio Revised Code to make and publish rules for the proper operation and management of the library. [Answer]

3. Defendant Larry D. Black is and was at all relevant times the Director of the Columbus Metropolitan Library, and is being sued under both personal and official capacities. [Answer]

4. Defendant Vonzell Johnson is and was at all relevant times the Assistant Manager, Security, of the Columbus Metropolitan Library, and is being sued under both personal and official capacities. [Answer]

5. Within the ambit of his personal liberty, Plaintiff Neinast customarily and regularly goes barefoot. While this exercise of personal liberty requires no justification, Plaintiff Neinast avers that he goes barefoot for health, comfort, expressive and spiritual reasons. [Answer]

6. On September 12, 1997, before being able to use the library facilities, Plaintiff Neinast was evicted from the Main Branch of the Columbus Metropolitan Library for being barefoot. [Answer]

7. On November 10, 2000, Plaintiff Neinast was stopped while exiting from the Main Branch of the Columbus Metropolitan Library. Plaintif Neinast was barefoot. Security officers informed him that he would have to have shoes on to return. [Answer]

8. On January 23, 2001, Plaintiff Neinast was approached by Security Officer Sam Towns while doing research using the facilities of the Main Branch of the Columbus Metropolitan Library. Plaintiff Neinast was barefoot. Officer Towns evicted Plaintiff Neinast from the library, informing him that he could not return without wearing shoes. Plaintiff Neinast was unable to finish his research and unable to check out any books. [Answer]

9. On March 2, 2001, Plaintiff Neinast was approached by Security Officer Eric Wilson while looking for books and doing research using the facilities of the Main Branch of the Columbus Metropolitan Library. Plaintiff Neinast was barefoot. Officer Wilson escorted Plaintiff Neinast to Assistant Director Chris Taylor, who, after some discussion, escorted Plaintiff Neinast to the front security desk, where Defendant Johnson, Assistant Manager, Security, supervised Officer Wilson as he presented Plaintiff Neinast with a one-day eviction from the Columbus Metropolitan Library. Plaintiff Neinast was not able to finish using the library facilities for his research. [Answer]

10. The Patron Regulations of the Library (File Code: 20.14), as approved by the Board, contain no prohibition on using the Library barefoot. [Answer]

11. The Eviction Procedure of the Library (File Code: 20.142), as approved by Defendant Black, provides for the eviction of patrons with no shoes (the "barefoot policy"). [Answer]

12. The Eviction Procedure of the Library (File Code: 20.142) clearly specifies that the procedure for the first and all subsequent violations of the barefoot policy is to warn the patron and to have the patron either leave or put on shoes. The Eviction Procedure does not countenance a formal one-day eviction for violation of the barefoot policy. [Answer]

13. The enforcement of a dress code against a non-disruptive mode of dress is not related to the proper management and operation of the Library. [Answer]

14. Plaintiff Neinast was intimidated and humiliated by the enforcement of this barefoot policy against him, and has suffered actual damages. [Answer]

15. Plaintiff Neinast has written to Defendant Black complaining of the enforcement of an Eviction Procedure without a corresponding Patron Regulation, the lack of authority of the Board to promulgate a regulation prohibiting a non-disruptive form of dress, and the deprivation of his right to receive speech. Defendant Black defended the barefoot policy. [Answer]

16. Plaintiff Neinast has written to each member of the Board complaining of the enforcement of an Eviction Procedure without a corresponding Patron Regulation, the lack of authority of the Board to promulgate a regulation prohibiting a non-disruptive form of dress, and the deprivation of his right to receive speech. Only Board President David C. Swaddling responded, claiming that the barefoot policy, as enforced by Defendant Black, was authorized. [Answer]

17. A follow-up letter by Plaintiff Neinast resulted in a letter from Defendant Black to the Franklin County Prosecutor's office for an opinion on the constitutional issues raised in Plaintiff Neinast's letter. The reply from the Franklin County Prosecutor's office stated that it was their opinion that a regulation requiring shoes was constitutional. [Answer]

18. Plaintiff Neinast's follow-up letter to Defendants Black and the President of the Board of Trustees Philip C. Johnston (in January of 2001, Mr. Swaddling's term as President expired, and Mr. Johnston was elected in his place) after the March 2, 2001 eviction elicited a reply from Defendant Black that did not address the fact that library personnel did not follow the Eviction Procedure, but instead said that "We will not respond to further correspondence on this matter." [Answer]

19. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to address deprivation by Defendants of Plaintiff's rights secured by the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the laws of Ohio. [Answer]

20. Plaintiff Neinast has no adequate remedy at law. [Answer]

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are hereby incorporated by reference. [Answer]

22. All the above-mentioned evictions deprived Plaintiff of his freedom to receive speech under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment, and Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. [Answer]

23. These deprivations of the right to receive speech against Plaintiff Neinast were effected under color of law, namely the regulation and barefoot policy claimed by Defendants Black and the Board. [Answer]

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are hereby incorporated by reference. [Answer]

25. All the above-mentioned evictions deprived Plaintiff of his liberty interest in personal appearance and expression under the 1st and 9th Amendments to the United States Constitution as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment, under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under Section 1, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. [Answer]

26. These deprivations of the freedom of personal appearance and expression against Plaintiff Neinast were effected under color of law, namely the regulation and barefoot policy claimed by Defendants Black and the Board. [Answer]

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 are hereby incorporated by reference. [Answer]

28. Defendant Black, with the acquiescence and support of Defendant the Board, is enforcing a barefoot policy that is not authorized by State Law. That barefoot policy is also not a rule or regulation promulgated by the Board. [Answer]

29. Defendant Johnson, with the acquiescence and support of the other Defendants, enforced that barefoot policy against Plaintiff Neinast in a fashion sanctioned by neither State Law, nor the Eviction Procedure. [Answer]

30. The Board has no authority to delegate its rulemaking authority to Defendant Black, and whatever rulemaking authority the Board has does not extend to rules that deprive patrons of rights secured under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio. [Answer]

31. The enforcement of this barefoot policy resulted in all the above-mentioned evictions, depriving Plaintiff of his substantive and procedural due process and equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Sections 1, 2 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. [Answer]

32. These deprivations of due process and equal protection against Plaintiff Neinast were effected under color of law, namely the regulation and barefoot policy claimed by Defendants Black, Johnson, and the Board. [Answer]



WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert A. Neinast respectfully requests that this Court grant him judgment as follows:

A. Declare that the Director of the Library does not have the authority to make regulations, only to enforce and administer regulations duly promulgated by the Board.

B. Declare that the Board does not have the statutory authority under the law to make regulations requiring patrons to wear shoes in the Library.

C. Declare that any policy requiring footwear in a library is unconstitutional and a denial of the right to receive speech, a denial of the liberty interest in one's personal appearance, and a denial of substantive due process and equal protection.

D. Issue a permanent injunction preventing the Board of Trustees or the Director from creating or enforcing any rule or regulation specifying that footwear must be worn in the Columbus Metropolitan Library.

E. Order the removal of all signs at all branches of the Columbus Metropolitan Library that specify that footwear is required, and the removal of the footwear reference in the Eviction Policy.

F. Award damages of $1000 for each cause of action to Plaintiff Neinast from Defendant Black, in his personal capacity.

G. Award damages of $1000 for violation of procedural due process by Defendant Johnson for the March 2, 2001 incident, in his personal capacity.

H. Order Defendants to pay all attorney's fees (including expert fees) and costs associated with this action.

I. Award Plaintiff any other legal and equitable relief to which he is entitled.



  Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Robert A. Neinast
Plaintiff, PRO SE
8617 Ashford Lane
Pickerington, OH 43147
Phone: (614) 759-1601
Email: neinast@worldnet.att.net