You are on page 1of 31

Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 2 of 14 PAGEID #: 2

City Manager of the City of Cincinnati, and the illegal conduct of those individuals as part of

their conspiracy to retaliate against Captain Butler for challenging their blatant misuse of state

tax funds which should have been utilized for emergency services and instead were unlawfully

utilized for general City of Cincinnati budget purposes, and the inappropriate expenditure of

federal Homeland Security grant funds.

Plaintiff Butler seeks all available remedies, including reclassification to Assistant Chief

of Police, all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages including emotional distress

damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

II. THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Jeffrey L. Butler, Jr. (Captain Butler or Plaintiff) is a citizen of the

United States and resident of Hamilton County, Ohio. He is employed by the City of Cincinnati

as a Police Captain.

2. Captain Butler is a highly accomplished law enforcement professional who has

worked his way up since joining the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) in 1986. He became

a Police Specialist in 1995, a Sergeant 1996, a Lieutenant in 2001, and a Captain in 2005. He

was consistently rated as exceeds standards on his annual performance reviews. He comes

from a long line of law enforcement individuals in his family covering several generations.

Currently, 16 members of Captain Butlers extended family serve (or have served) in law

enforcement.

3. Defendant City of Cincinnati is a municipality organized under the laws of the

State of Ohio.

2
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 3 of 14 PAGEID #: 3

4. Defendant Harry Black is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State

of Ohio, and is the City Manager of the City of Cincinnati. Mr. Black is being sued individually

and in his official capacity.

5. Defendant Sheila Hill-Christian is a citizen of the United States and a resident of

the State of Ohio, and is the Assistant City Manager of the City of Cincinnati. Ms. Hill-Christian

is being sued individually and her official capacity.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 because

Plaintiffs federal claims arise under the laws of the United States.

7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1367 because Plaintiffs state law claims derive from the same operative facts and are

so related to his federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction that they form a

part of the same case or controversy.

8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Plaintiff is employed in

this Division and District, and the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint has taken place,

and is taking place, within this Division and District.

IV. THE FACTS

A. Captain Butler Cleaned Up The Emergency Communications Center.

9. Effective January 3, 2016, Captain Butler was assigned to the Emergency

Communications Center (ECC) pursuant to the directive of Defendant City Manager Black and

at the request of Cincinnati Police Chief Eliot K. Isaac.

3
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 4 of 14 PAGEID #: 4

10. Captain Butler had originally been assigned to audit ECC beginning December 8,

2015. As a result of this effort, Plaintiff was transferred to ECC in January 2016 and told to

clean up the ECC.

11. In this position, Captain Butler was responsible for the management of all ECC

roles, including budget, discipline, hiring, training and strategic planning.

12. Captain Butler excelled in this role; a fact recognized by Lt. Colonel Dave Bailey

in his November 30, 2016 performance review of Captain Butler. In that review, Lt. Colonel

Bailey stated:

During this period, Captain Butler assumed command of


the Emergency Communication Section. This was a
daunting assignment given the challenges created by
previous administrations. Among the major issues:

Personnel morale and insufficient staffing


Hiring new and lateral classes
Computer Aided Dispatch System implementation
and trouble shooting
Standard Operating Procedure Audit and
development
Overall restructuring of the operation
Budget restructuring
New Motorola APEX implementation and
troubleshooting
Training
Lack of performance reviews and accountability

Captain Butler has done an outstanding job achieving


substantial progress in each of these areas. In particular,
the CAD and the Motorola radio migrations were laden
with performance issues due in part to poor planning by
previous administrators. But under Captain Butlers tenure,
personnel have been hired, training has been developed and
morale has generally improved. Uniform supervision has
been added to the section and the Department has seen a
dramatic improvement in overall service delivery.

4
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 5 of 14 PAGEID #: 5

B. Captain Butler Should Have Been Promoted to Assistant Chief of Police.

13. Captain Butlers equivalent from the Fire Department at the ECC was Anson

Turley.

14. Turley served in the same capacity at the ECC as did Captain Butler. However,

the Fire Command at ECC only had 17 persons authorized in their personnel allocation, while

the Police Department had 122 persons authorized in their ECC personnel allocation.

15. Turley was promoted to Assistant Fire Chief on April 25, 2016.

16. On August 25, 2016, Captain Butler submitted the paperwork required for a

Reclassification Position, establishing that he should be reclassified to Assistant Chief of Police.

17. On September 21, 2016, Captain Butler was advised by email of a new Civil

Service/Human Resources Reclassification process.

18. Captain Butler resubmitted the appropriate form on September 25, 2016.

19. Captain Butler inquired of the City of Cincinnati Human Resources office as to

the status of his Reclassification request on October 4, 2016.

20. On October 25, 2016, in an internal memorandum, the CPD Personnel Manager

concluded that Captain Butlers Reclassification request should be denied.

21. Captain Butler was not informed of that conclusion.

22. Captain Butler again requested to know the status of his Reclassification request

on November 15, 2016 and was advised that it had been delivered to the City of Cincinnati

Human Resources Department on November 3, 2016.

C. Harry Black, the City Manager, Refused to Allow Captain Butlers


Reclassification to Assistant Chief of Police.

23. On December 6, 2016, Captain Butler met with the City of Cincinnati Human

Resources Director Georgetta Kelly regarding the status of his Reclassification request. Ms.

5
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 6 of 14 PAGEID #: 6

Kelly told Captain Butler that the City HR Department had the request but would not do

anything with it, and that he should check with Chief of Police Isaac. Ms. Kelly further noted

that Captain Butler did not need a decision from Civil Service regarding his Reclassification

request, because the Chief has the power to make the recommendation to the City Manager

since the Chief has the authority to increase the Assistant Chief complement if the City Manager

agrees.

24. On December 7, 2016, Captain Butler met with Police Chief Isaac, who advised

Captain Butler that Defendant City Manager Black did not wish to increase the complement of

Assistant Police Chiefs.

25. Captain Butler filed his notice of appeal on December 7, 2016, which was

changed by the City of Cincinnati Human Resources Department to an appearance request at

the next Civil Service Commission meeting, on December 15, 2016.

26. At that December 15, 2016 Civil Service Commission meeting, the Commission

denied Captain Butlers Reclassification request based upon the CPDs October 25, 2016 denial,

without a hearing.

D. Harry Black and Assistant City Manager Sheila Hill-Christian Retaliated Against
Captain Butler for his Complaints About City Misuse of 911 Funds.

27. As a result of his command position at the ECC, Captain Butler became aware

that Defendant City of Cincinnati was misusing state funds which were to be earmarked for

emergency services under the ECC, such as 911.

28. Defendant City of Cincinnati was using the state 911 Recovery fees in its general

budget to pay salaries and for other general budget purposes.

29. In addition, Defendant City of Cincinnati was inappropriately allocating federal

Homeland Security grant funds.

6
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 7 of 14 PAGEID #: 7

30. The Homeland Security grant program funds were intended for purchase of a

Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. Although the funds were used to purchase the

system, Captain Butler was investigating and voicing concerns about how and why the purchase

was made since the partial grant submission paperwork did not make sense or meet the grant

guidelines; Captain Butler had identified an unsigned grant submission page (in a related grant)

with a fictitious name; the system configuration of the CAD when Captain Butler arrived at the

ECC was different than the grant configuration awarded; there were no signed change orders by

City officials for appropriately approved changes; and there were no copies of grant expenditures

or authorizations in the possession of the Cincinnati Police Department.

31. Upon learning of Defendant City of Cincinnatis misuse/misapplication of these

state and federal funds, Captain Butler brought these issues to the attention of City Management,

including Defendant City Manager Black and Defendant Assistant City Manager Hill-Christian.

32. In a meeting in March 2016, Defendant Assistant City Manager Hill-Christian

told Captain Butler that he should no longer talk about the Homeland Security grant, described

above in Paragraph 30, and about which Captain Butler had complained to City management.

33. In an email on April 10, 2016, Defendant Hill-Christian instructed Plaintiff to

cease the email traffic regarding his complaints on this issue.

34. On December 7 and 15, 2016, Captain Butlers Reclassification request to

Assistant Chief of Police was denied.

35. In late December 2016, Defendant City Manager Harry Black complained that he

was tired of hearing Butler, Butler, Butler .

7
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 8 of 14 PAGEID #: 8

36. Effective January 1, 2017, following his complaints to Defendants about their

flagrant misuse of state tax funds and federal grants funds, Captain Butler was transferred out of

his ECC command with virtually no notice.

37. Captain Butler was denied his reclassification to Assistant Chief of Police, and

transferred from his ECC command, in retaliation for voicing complaints to Defendants about the

misuse of state tax funds and federal grants funds detailed above.

E. City Manager Harry Blacks Retaliation Against Captain Butler is a


Continuation of his Pattern and Practice of Misuse of Funds and Abuse of Power.

38. The retaliation, misuse of funds and abuse of power by City Manager Harry

Black, detailed above, is bad enough. However, City Manager Blacks abusive behavior toward

Plaintiff is merely one example of his pattern and practice of misuse of funds, abuse of power

and retaliation against law enforcement officers who challenge Blacks unlawful behavior.

39. For example, shortly after he became City Manager in Cincinnati (having left his

Finance Director position in Baltimore), City Manager Black insisted that city purchases

(including those for law enforcement agencies) go through a purchasing clearing house, BFX,

LLC.

40. This process effectively requires that the City pay a 15% mark-up on all

purchases run through BFX, LLC.

41. BFX, LLC was incorporated by Al Foxx and is owned by Foxx and his wife.

42. Al Foxx was Public Works Director in Baltimore at the same time that Black was

Baltimores Finance Director.

43. Black, Al Foxx, and Al Foxxs wife are close friends.

44. Blacks insistence that City purchases go through the clearing house owned by his

close friend inappropriately enriches those friends to the detriment of Cincinnati taxpayers.

8
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 9 of 14 PAGEID #: 9

45. As another example, the sale of forfeited property and the use of funds derived

therefrom is governed by R.C. 2981.12, et seq.

46. City Manager Black has insisted that such funds be used to pay Saul A. Green of

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone in the amount of $299,760.

47. Such use is not an appropriate use under R.C. 2981.12, et seq.

48. As yet another example, on July 1, 2015, Cincinnati City Council passed an

ordinance (No. 247-2015) which Mayor John Cranley signed into law, establishing a new

Improvement Program Project Account which was funded with $2,000,000 from the

unappropriated surplus of the Citys General Fund.

49. Pursuant to the ordinance, proper city officials were authorized to use and

expend the $2,000,000 for the purpose of purchasing technology and equipment for police

cruisers and officers.

50. Despite the clear language of the ordinance, and contrary to the letter and spirit of

the ordinance, City Manager Black ordered the expenditure of approximately $800,000 for

purposes other than the purchase of technology and equipment for police cruisers and officers.

51. Cincinnati Police Lt. Colonel Dave Bailey objected to City Manager Blacks

inappropriate use of those funds.

52. In retaliation, City Manager Black engineered the reassignment of command of

the ECC from Lt. Colonel Bailey to Lt. Theresa Theetge (who had no experience with the

management and technology of the ECC).

V. THE CLAIMS

A. COUNT ONE
ABUSE OF POWER

53. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

9
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 10 of 14 PAGEID #: 10

54. Defendants Black and Hill-Christian, as detailed above, acted beyond the scope of

their authority under the City Charter to deny Plaintiff the reclassification to Assistant Chief of

Police to which he was entitled, and to transfer him out of his ECC command, without authority

to do so, because Plaintiff complained about Defendants misuse of state tax funds and federal

grants funds.

55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damage for which he is entitled to judgment and relief.

B. COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH 42 U.S.C. 1983

56. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

57. Plaintiff engaged in the constitutionally protected speech or conduct when he

complained of Defendants misuse of state and federal grants funds.

58. Defendants actions in denying Plaintiff the reclassification to Assistant Chief of

Police to which he was entitled, and transferring him out of his ECC command, in retaliation for

his protected speech or conduct, violated Plaintiffs right to free speech on matters of public

concern as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

59. Defendants above-described conduct was intentional, malicious, willful and

wanton in nature.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damages and is entitled to judgment and relief.

C. COUNT THREE
VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 42 U.S.C. 1983

61. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

10
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 11 of 14 PAGEID #: 11

62. Defendants actions deprived Plaintiff of his protected interest in his good name

and professional reputation.

63. Defendants intentional, malicious, and wanton actions effectively foreclosed the

opportunity for Plaintiff to advance his career within the law enforcement community, by

unlawfully denying his Reclassification to Assistant Chief of Police, in retaliation for voicing

complaints to the Defendants about the misuse of state tax funds and federal grants detailed

above.

64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damage for which he is entitled to judgment and relief.

D. COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 42 U.S.C. 1983

65. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

66. Plaintiff has a property interest in the position of Assistant Chief of Police to

which he should have been reclassified effective April 25, 2016 as provided by the City Charter.

67. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any pre-deprivation notice or hearing

regarding this refusal to reclassify him to Assistant Police Chief, in direct contravention of the

City Charter and in violation of Plaintiffs due process rights.

68. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any written basis for the

reclassification refusal or any hearing thereon.

69. Defendants likewise failed to provide Plaintiff with any other post-deprivation

process, in violation of Plaintiffs due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

70. In denying Plaintiff pre-deprivation and/or post-deprivation process, Defendants

violated Plaintiffs procedural due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

11
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 12 of 14 PAGEID #: 12

71. Defendants above-described conduct was intentional, malicious, willful and

wanton in nature.

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damage and is entitled to judgment and relief.

E. COUNT FIVE
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS

73. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

74. Throughout his career, Plaintiff has had a long-standing record of high

achievement and success as a police officer.

75. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that he would be reclassified to the

appropriate position of Assistant Chief of Police, which would have led to additional career

opportunities.

76. Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs expectations.

77. Defendants tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs prospect for future employment

in his profession, by unlawfully refusing to approve his reclassification to Assistant Chief of

Police.

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damages and is entitled to judgment and relief.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Butler, Jr. demands judgment against Defendants as

follows:

a. That Plaintiff be retroactively reclassified to Assistant Chief of Police

effective April 25, 2016;

b. That Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages including emotional

distress damages;

12
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 13 of 14 PAGEID #: 13

c. That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages;

d. That Plaintiff be awarded pre-judgment interest;

e. That Plaintiff be awarded front pay;

f. That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys fees;

g. That Plaintiff be compensated for the adverse tax consequences of

receiving lump sum awards rather than compensation over several, separate tax years;

h. That Defendants be enjoined from continuing to misuse the State 911

Recovery fees and the Homeland Security grant program funds;

i. That Defendant Black be enjoined from misusing funds derived from R.C.

2981.12, et seq., from improper use of funds under Cincinnati City Ordinance No. 247-

2015, and from forcing the City to use the business of his friend Al Foxx for its

purchases; and

j. That Plaintiff be awarded all other legal and equitable relief to which he

may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian P. Gillan


Randolph H. Freking (0009158)
Brian P. Gillan (0030013)
Trial Attorneys for Plaintiff
FREKING MYERS & REUL LLC
600 Vine Street, Ninth Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 721-1975/Fax: (513) 651-2570
randy@fmr.law
bgillan@fmr.law

13
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 14 of 14 PAGEID #: 14

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all matters so triable.

/s/ Brian P. Gillan

14
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 15
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS


Jeffrey L. Butler, Jr. City of Cincinnati, OH, Harry Black and Sheila Hill-Christian

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Hamilton County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Brian P. Gillan, Randolph H. Freking, Freking Myers & Reul LLC, 600
Vine St., 9th Fl., Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 721-1975

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6


Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit
of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42: 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Viloation of Right to Free Speech
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 75,000.00 JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
09/12/2017 /s/ Brian P. Gillan
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE


Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 16
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44


Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.


Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 2 of 14 PAGEID #: 2

City Manager of the City of Cincinnati, and the illegal conduct of those individuals as part of

their conspiracy to retaliate against Captain Butler for challenging their blatant misuse of state

tax funds which should have been utilized for emergency services and instead were unlawfully

utilized for general City of Cincinnati budget purposes, and the inappropriate expenditure of

federal Homeland Security grant funds.

Plaintiff Butler seeks all available remedies, including reclassification to Assistant Chief

of Police, all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages including emotional distress

damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

II. THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Jeffrey L. Butler, Jr. (Captain Butler or Plaintiff) is a citizen of the

United States and resident of Hamilton County, Ohio. He is employed by the City of Cincinnati

as a Police Captain.

2. Captain Butler is a highly accomplished law enforcement professional who has

worked his way up since joining the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) in 1986. He became

a Police Specialist in 1995, a Sergeant 1996, a Lieutenant in 2001, and a Captain in 2005. He

was consistently rated as exceeds standards on his annual performance reviews. He comes

from a long line of law enforcement individuals in his family covering several generations.

Currently, 16 members of Captain Butlers extended family serve (or have served) in law

enforcement.

3. Defendant City of Cincinnati is a municipality organized under the laws of the

State of Ohio.

2
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 3 of 14 PAGEID #: 3

4. Defendant Harry Black is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State

of Ohio, and is the City Manager of the City of Cincinnati. Mr. Black is being sued individually

and in his official capacity.

5. Defendant Sheila Hill-Christian is a citizen of the United States and a resident of

the State of Ohio, and is the Assistant City Manager of the City of Cincinnati. Ms. Hill-Christian

is being sued individually and her official capacity.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 because

Plaintiffs federal claims arise under the laws of the United States.

7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1367 because Plaintiffs state law claims derive from the same operative facts and are

so related to his federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction that they form a

part of the same case or controversy.

8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Plaintiff is employed in

this Division and District, and the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint has taken place,

and is taking place, within this Division and District.

IV. THE FACTS

A. Captain Butler Cleaned Up The Emergency Communications Center.

9. Effective January 3, 2016, Captain Butler was assigned to the Emergency

Communications Center (ECC) pursuant to the directive of Defendant City Manager Black and

at the request of Cincinnati Police Chief Eliot K. Isaac.

3
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 4 of 14 PAGEID #: 4

10. Captain Butler had originally been assigned to audit ECC beginning December 8,

2015. As a result of this effort, Plaintiff was transferred to ECC in January 2016 and told to

clean up the ECC.

11. In this position, Captain Butler was responsible for the management of all ECC

roles, including budget, discipline, hiring, training and strategic planning.

12. Captain Butler excelled in this role; a fact recognized by Lt. Colonel Dave Bailey

in his November 30, 2016 performance review of Captain Butler. In that review, Lt. Colonel

Bailey stated:

During this period, Captain Butler assumed command of


the Emergency Communication Section. This was a
daunting assignment given the challenges created by
previous administrations. Among the major issues:

Personnel morale and insufficient staffing


Hiring new and lateral classes
Computer Aided Dispatch System implementation
and trouble shooting
Standard Operating Procedure Audit and
development
Overall restructuring of the operation
Budget restructuring
New Motorola APEX implementation and
troubleshooting
Training
Lack of performance reviews and accountability

Captain Butler has done an outstanding job achieving


substantial progress in each of these areas. In particular,
the CAD and the Motorola radio migrations were laden
with performance issues due in part to poor planning by
previous administrators. But under Captain Butlers tenure,
personnel have been hired, training has been developed and
morale has generally improved. Uniform supervision has
been added to the section and the Department has seen a
dramatic improvement in overall service delivery.

4
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 5 of 14 PAGEID #: 5

B. Captain Butler Should Have Been Promoted to Assistant Chief of Police.

13. Captain Butlers equivalent from the Fire Department at the ECC was Anson

Turley.

14. Turley served in the same capacity at the ECC as did Captain Butler. However,

the Fire Command at ECC only had 17 persons authorized in their personnel allocation, while

the Police Department had 122 persons authorized in their ECC personnel allocation.

15. Turley was promoted to Assistant Fire Chief on April 25, 2016.

16. On August 25, 2016, Captain Butler submitted the paperwork required for a

Reclassification Position, establishing that he should be reclassified to Assistant Chief of Police.

17. On September 21, 2016, Captain Butler was advised by email of a new Civil

Service/Human Resources Reclassification process.

18. Captain Butler resubmitted the appropriate form on September 25, 2016.

19. Captain Butler inquired of the City of Cincinnati Human Resources office as to

the status of his Reclassification request on October 4, 2016.

20. On October 25, 2016, in an internal memorandum, the CPD Personnel Manager

concluded that Captain Butlers Reclassification request should be denied.

21. Captain Butler was not informed of that conclusion.

22. Captain Butler again requested to know the status of his Reclassification request

on November 15, 2016 and was advised that it had been delivered to the City of Cincinnati

Human Resources Department on November 3, 2016.

C. Harry Black, the City Manager, Refused to Allow Captain Butlers


Reclassification to Assistant Chief of Police.

23. On December 6, 2016, Captain Butler met with the City of Cincinnati Human

Resources Director Georgetta Kelly regarding the status of his Reclassification request. Ms.

5
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 6 of 14 PAGEID #: 6

Kelly told Captain Butler that the City HR Department had the request but would not do

anything with it, and that he should check with Chief of Police Isaac. Ms. Kelly further noted

that Captain Butler did not need a decision from Civil Service regarding his Reclassification

request, because the Chief has the power to make the recommendation to the City Manager

since the Chief has the authority to increase the Assistant Chief complement if the City Manager

agrees.

24. On December 7, 2016, Captain Butler met with Police Chief Isaac, who advised

Captain Butler that Defendant City Manager Black did not wish to increase the complement of

Assistant Police Chiefs.

25. Captain Butler filed his notice of appeal on December 7, 2016, which was

changed by the City of Cincinnati Human Resources Department to an appearance request at

the next Civil Service Commission meeting, on December 15, 2016.

26. At that December 15, 2016 Civil Service Commission meeting, the Commission

denied Captain Butlers Reclassification request based upon the CPDs October 25, 2016 denial,

without a hearing.

D. Harry Black and Assistant City Manager Sheila Hill-Christian Retaliated Against
Captain Butler for his Complaints About City Misuse of 911 Funds.

27. As a result of his command position at the ECC, Captain Butler became aware

that Defendant City of Cincinnati was misusing state funds which were to be earmarked for

emergency services under the ECC, such as 911.

28. Defendant City of Cincinnati was using the state 911 Recovery fees in its general

budget to pay salaries and for other general budget purposes.

29. In addition, Defendant City of Cincinnati was inappropriately allocating federal

Homeland Security grant funds.

6
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 7 of 14 PAGEID #: 7

30. The Homeland Security grant program funds were intended for purchase of a

Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. Although the funds were used to purchase the

system, Captain Butler was investigating and voicing concerns about how and why the purchase

was made since the partial grant submission paperwork did not make sense or meet the grant

guidelines; Captain Butler had identified an unsigned grant submission page (in a related grant)

with a fictitious name; the system configuration of the CAD when Captain Butler arrived at the

ECC was different than the grant configuration awarded; there were no signed change orders by

City officials for appropriately approved changes; and there were no copies of grant expenditures

or authorizations in the possession of the Cincinnati Police Department.

31. Upon learning of Defendant City of Cincinnatis misuse/misapplication of these

state and federal funds, Captain Butler brought these issues to the attention of City Management,

including Defendant City Manager Black and Defendant Assistant City Manager Hill-Christian.

32. In a meeting in March 2016, Defendant Assistant City Manager Hill-Christian

told Captain Butler that he should no longer talk about the Homeland Security grant, described

above in Paragraph 30, and about which Captain Butler had complained to City management.

33. In an email on April 10, 2016, Defendant Hill-Christian instructed Plaintiff to

cease the email traffic regarding his complaints on this issue.

34. On December 7 and 15, 2016, Captain Butlers Reclassification request to

Assistant Chief of Police was denied.

35. In late December 2016, Defendant City Manager Harry Black complained that he

was tired of hearing Butler, Butler, Butler .

7
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 8 of 14 PAGEID #: 8

36. Effective January 1, 2017, following his complaints to Defendants about their

flagrant misuse of state tax funds and federal grants funds, Captain Butler was transferred out of

his ECC command with virtually no notice.

37. Captain Butler was denied his reclassification to Assistant Chief of Police, and

transferred from his ECC command, in retaliation for voicing complaints to Defendants about the

misuse of state tax funds and federal grants funds detailed above.

E. City Manager Harry Blacks Retaliation Against Captain Butler is a


Continuation of his Pattern and Practice of Misuse of Funds and Abuse of Power.

38. The retaliation, misuse of funds and abuse of power by City Manager Harry

Black, detailed above, is bad enough. However, City Manager Blacks abusive behavior toward

Plaintiff is merely one example of his pattern and practice of misuse of funds, abuse of power

and retaliation against law enforcement officers who challenge Blacks unlawful behavior.

39. For example, shortly after he became City Manager in Cincinnati (having left his

Finance Director position in Baltimore), City Manager Black insisted that city purchases

(including those for law enforcement agencies) go through a purchasing clearing house, BFX,

LLC.

40. This process effectively requires that the City pay a 15% mark-up on all

purchases run through BFX, LLC.

41. BFX, LLC was incorporated by Al Foxx and is owned by Foxx and his wife.

42. Al Foxx was Public Works Director in Baltimore at the same time that Black was

Baltimores Finance Director.

43. Black, Al Foxx, and Al Foxxs wife are close friends.

44. Blacks insistence that City purchases go through the clearing house owned by his

close friend inappropriately enriches those friends to the detriment of Cincinnati taxpayers.

8
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 9 of 14 PAGEID #: 9

45. As another example, the sale of forfeited property and the use of funds derived

therefrom is governed by R.C. 2981.12, et seq.

46. City Manager Black has insisted that such funds be used to pay Saul A. Green of

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone in the amount of $299,760.

47. Such use is not an appropriate use under R.C. 2981.12, et seq.

48. As yet another example, on July 1, 2015, Cincinnati City Council passed an

ordinance (No. 247-2015) which Mayor John Cranley signed into law, establishing a new

Improvement Program Project Account which was funded with $2,000,000 from the

unappropriated surplus of the Citys General Fund.

49. Pursuant to the ordinance, proper city officials were authorized to use and

expend the $2,000,000 for the purpose of purchasing technology and equipment for police

cruisers and officers.

50. Despite the clear language of the ordinance, and contrary to the letter and spirit of

the ordinance, City Manager Black ordered the expenditure of approximately $800,000 for

purposes other than the purchase of technology and equipment for police cruisers and officers.

51. Cincinnati Police Lt. Colonel Dave Bailey objected to City Manager Blacks

inappropriate use of those funds.

52. In retaliation, City Manager Black engineered the reassignment of command of

the ECC from Lt. Colonel Bailey to Lt. Theresa Theetge (who had no experience with the

management and technology of the ECC).

V. THE CLAIMS

A. COUNT ONE
ABUSE OF POWER

53. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

9
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 10 of 14 PAGEID #: 10

54. Defendants Black and Hill-Christian, as detailed above, acted beyond the scope of

their authority under the City Charter to deny Plaintiff the reclassification to Assistant Chief of

Police to which he was entitled, and to transfer him out of his ECC command, without authority

to do so, because Plaintiff complained about Defendants misuse of state tax funds and federal

grants funds.

55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damage for which he is entitled to judgment and relief.

B. COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH 42 U.S.C. 1983

56. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

57. Plaintiff engaged in the constitutionally protected speech or conduct when he

complained of Defendants misuse of state and federal grants funds.

58. Defendants actions in denying Plaintiff the reclassification to Assistant Chief of

Police to which he was entitled, and transferring him out of his ECC command, in retaliation for

his protected speech or conduct, violated Plaintiffs right to free speech on matters of public

concern as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

59. Defendants above-described conduct was intentional, malicious, willful and

wanton in nature.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damages and is entitled to judgment and relief.

C. COUNT THREE
VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 42 U.S.C. 1983

61. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

10
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 11 of 14 PAGEID #: 11

62. Defendants actions deprived Plaintiff of his protected interest in his good name

and professional reputation.

63. Defendants intentional, malicious, and wanton actions effectively foreclosed the

opportunity for Plaintiff to advance his career within the law enforcement community, by

unlawfully denying his Reclassification to Assistant Chief of Police, in retaliation for voicing

complaints to the Defendants about the misuse of state tax funds and federal grants detailed

above.

64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damage for which he is entitled to judgment and relief.

D. COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 42 U.S.C. 1983

65. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

66. Plaintiff has a property interest in the position of Assistant Chief of Police to

which he should have been reclassified effective April 25, 2016 as provided by the City Charter.

67. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any pre-deprivation notice or hearing

regarding this refusal to reclassify him to Assistant Police Chief, in direct contravention of the

City Charter and in violation of Plaintiffs due process rights.

68. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any written basis for the

reclassification refusal or any hearing thereon.

69. Defendants likewise failed to provide Plaintiff with any other post-deprivation

process, in violation of Plaintiffs due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

70. In denying Plaintiff pre-deprivation and/or post-deprivation process, Defendants

violated Plaintiffs procedural due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

11
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 12 of 14 PAGEID #: 12

71. Defendants above-described conduct was intentional, malicious, willful and

wanton in nature.

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damage and is entitled to judgment and relief.

E. COUNT FIVE
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS

73. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

74. Throughout his career, Plaintiff has had a long-standing record of high

achievement and success as a police officer.

75. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that he would be reclassified to the

appropriate position of Assistant Chief of Police, which would have led to additional career

opportunities.

76. Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs expectations.

77. Defendants tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs prospect for future employment

in his profession, by unlawfully refusing to approve his reclassification to Assistant Chief of

Police.

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful, retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff has suffered injury and damages and is entitled to judgment and relief.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Butler, Jr. demands judgment against Defendants as

follows:

a. That Plaintiff be retroactively reclassified to Assistant Chief of Police

effective April 25, 2016;

b. That Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages including emotional

distress damages;

12
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 13 of 14 PAGEID #: 13

c. That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages;

d. That Plaintiff be awarded pre-judgment interest;

e. That Plaintiff be awarded front pay;

f. That Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys fees;

g. That Plaintiff be compensated for the adverse tax consequences of

receiving lump sum awards rather than compensation over several, separate tax years;

h. That Defendants be enjoined from continuing to misuse the State 911

Recovery fees and the Homeland Security grant program funds;

i. That Defendant Black be enjoined from misusing funds derived from R.C.

2981.12, et seq., from improper use of funds under Cincinnati City Ordinance No. 247-

2015, and from forcing the City to use the business of his friend Al Foxx for its

purchases; and

j. That Plaintiff be awarded all other legal and equitable relief to which he

may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian P. Gillan


Randolph H. Freking (0009158)
Brian P. Gillan (0030013)
Trial Attorneys for Plaintiff
FREKING MYERS & REUL LLC
600 Vine Street, Ninth Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 721-1975/Fax: (513) 651-2570
randy@fmr.law
bgillan@fmr.law

13
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 14 of 14 PAGEID #: 14

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all matters so triable.

/s/ Brian P. Gillan

14
Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 15
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS


Jeffrey L. Butler, Jr. City of Cincinnati, OH, Harry Black and Sheila Hill-Christian

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Hamilton County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Brian P. Gillan, Randolph H. Freking, Freking Myers & Reul LLC, 600
Vine St., 9th Fl., Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 721-1975

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6


Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit
of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42: 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Viloation of Right to Free Speech
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 75,000.00 JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
09/12/2017 /s/ Brian P. Gillan
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE


Case: 1:17-cv-00604-MRB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 09/12/17 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 16
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44


Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.


Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.