* It is not clear whether Local Rule 31 applies to this case, which was originally assigned to Judge Miller as Case No. 01 CV 04 3104. The case was not dismissed. It was removed to Federal Court and adjudicated there; however, state law claims were neither addressed nor remanded. See also paragraphs 17 and 18, infra.

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 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 Patrick A. Losinski is the Executive Director of the Columbus Metropolitan Library and is being sued in his official capacity. Larry D. Black was the Executive Director of the Library, until his retirement on June 28, 2002. [Answer]

4. 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]

5. 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]

6. 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]

7. 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]

8. 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]

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

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

11. 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]

12. 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]

13. Plaintiff Neinast was intimidated and humiliated by the enforcement of this barefoot policy against him. [Answer]

14. Plaintiff Neinast wrote to Mr. 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. Mr. Black defended the barefoot policy. [Answer]

15. Plaintiff Neinast wrote 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 Mr. Black, was authorized. [Answer]

16. Plaintiff Neinast's follow-up letter to Mr. 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 Mr. 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]

17. On April 3, 2001, an action was brought in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law issues to address this deprivation of Plaintiff's free speech, personal appearance, an due process rights secured by the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the laws of Ohio. That action was 01 CV 04 3104. [Answer]

18. The Library removed that action to Federal Court. On March 27, 2002, the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Ohio granted the Library’s motion for summary judgment on his free speech, personal appearance and due process claims, but neither addressed nor remanded Neinast’s state law claims. Neinast appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed on October 10, 2003, but again did not address Neinast’s state law claims. The Supreme Court denied Neinast’s petition for a writ of certiorari on April 19, 2004. [Answer]

19. This action is being filed to have the state law claims addressed. [Answer]

20. On May 3, 2004, Neinast wrote to Losinski to see if Losinski, as a different Executive Director, would consider removing the shoe rule. As of this date, Mr. Losinski has not responded to Neinast’s letter. [Answer]

21. On June 10, 2004, Neinast returned to the Library for the first time in three years. He grudgingly wore flip-flops, got a book, sat in a Library chair, removed his flip-flops, and started reading. After 10 minutes he was approached by a guard, and told that he had to leave if he did not put on his flip-flops. The guard said that shoes were required at all times in the Library. [Answer]

22. On June 14, 2004, Neinast entered the Library barefoot, did some research, and started reading a library book. He was later approached by a guard and told he had to leave to put on shoes, and that he was welcome to return if he was wearing shoes. [Answer]

23. Absent this Court's intervention, the Plaintiff will be irreparably injured by the denial of his right to use the Library. [Answer]

24. Defendant Losinski, and Mr. Black before him, with the acquiescence and support of Defendant the Board, is enforcing a shoe rule that is not authorized by State Law. That shoe rule has not been promulgated by the Board. [Answer]

25. The Board has no authority to delegate its rulemaking authority to Defendant Black [typo: should be "Losinksi or Mr. Black"], and has not been granted the authority under statute to make and enforce the shoe rule. [Answer]

26. The enforcement of this shoe rule resulted in all the above-mentioned evictions, depriving Plaintiff of his right to use the Library. [Answer]

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

A. Declare, under the Ohio Revised Code Section 2721.02, that the Executive Director of the Library does not have the authority to make regulations, only to enforce and administer regulations duly promulgated by the Board, and that the shoe rule is invalid.

B. Declare, under the Ohio Revised Code Section 2721.02, that the Board does not have the statutory authority under the law to make regulations requiring patrons to wear shoes in the Library.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. Award damages of $20,000 to Plaintiff Neinast for denying him the use of the premises of the Library.

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