O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_____N_o_r_th_e_rnDDisitsrtircict tooff_O_h_i_o______

Derek Hamilton, et al.
Plaintiff
v. Ashland County Board of Elections, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02546 ) )

Summons in a Civil Action

To: (Defendant’s name and address)
Ashland County Board of Elections 110 Cottage Street Ashland, Ohio 44805

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
David Singleton Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 East 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

10/28/2008

Name of clerk of court Deputy clerk’s signature

(Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States allowed 60 days by Rule 12(a)(3).)

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons (Page 2)

Proof of Service

I declare under penalty of perjury that I served the summons and complaint in this case on by:
(1) personally delivering a copy of each to the individual at this place,

(2) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with who resides there and is of suitable age and discretion; or

(3) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive it whose name is ; or

(4) returning the summons unexecuted to the court clerk on

; or

(5) other (specify)

, ; or

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $ 0.00

. .

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Export

Import

Reset

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_____N_o_r_th_e_rnDDisitsrtircict tooff_O_h_i_o______

Derek Hamilton, et al. Plaintiff v.
Ashland County Board of Elections, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) Civil Action No. ) )

Summons in a Civil Action

To: (Defendant’s name and address)
Bonnie Manos Ashland County Board of Elections 110 Cottage Street Ashland, Ohio 44805

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
David Singleton Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 East 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

10/28/2008

Name of clerk of court Deputy clerk’s signature

(Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States allowed 60 days by Rule 12(a)(3).)

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons (Page 2)

Proof of Service

I declare under penalty of perjury that I served the summons and complaint in this case on by:
(1) personally delivering a copy of each to the individual at this place,

(2) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with who resides there and is of suitable age and discretion; or

(3) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive it whose name is ; or

(4) returning the summons unexecuted to the court clerk on

; or

(5) other (specify)

, ; or

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $ 0.00

. .

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Export

Import

Reset

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_____N_o_r_th_e_rnDDisitsrtircict tooff_O_h_i_o______

Derek Hamilton, et al. Plaintiff v.
Ashland County Board of Elections, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) Civil Action No. ) )

Summons in a Civil Action

To: (Defendant’s name and address)
David Samsel Ashland County Board of Elections 110 Cottage Street Ashland, Ohio 44805

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
David Singleton Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 East 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

10/28/2008

Name of clerk of court Deputy clerk’s signature

(Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States allowed 60 days by Rule 12(a)(3).)

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons (Page 2)

Proof of Service

I declare under penalty of perjury that I served the summons and complaint in this case on by:
(1) personally delivering a copy of each to the individual at this place,

(2) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with who resides there and is of suitable age and discretion; or

(3) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive it whose name is ; or

(4) returning the summons unexecuted to the court clerk on

; or

(5) other (specify)

, ; or

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $ 0.00

. .

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Export

Import

Reset

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_____N_o_r_th_e_rnDDisitsrtircict tooff_O_h_i_o______

Derek Hamilton, et al. Plaintiff v.
Ashland County Board of Elections, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) Civil Action No. ) )

Summons in a Civil Action

To: (Defendant’s name and address)
Dennis Ragle Ashland County Board of Elections 110 Cottage Street Ashland, Ohio 44805

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
David Singleton Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 East 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

10/28/2008

Name of clerk of court Deputy clerk’s signature

(Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States allowed 60 days by Rule 12(a)(3).)

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons (Page 2)

Proof of Service

I declare under penalty of perjury that I served the summons and complaint in this case on by:
(1) personally delivering a copy of each to the individual at this place,

(2) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with who resides there and is of suitable age and discretion; or

(3) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive it whose name is ; or

(4) returning the summons unexecuted to the court clerk on

; or

(5) other (specify)

, ; or

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $ 0.00

. .

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Export

Import

Reset

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_____N_o_r_th_e_rnDDisitsrtircict tooff_O_h_i_o______

Derek Hamilton, et al. Plaintiff v.
Ashland County Board of Elections, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) Civil Action No. ) )

Summons in a Civil Action

To: (Defendant’s name and address)
George Bringman Ashland County Board of Elections 110 Cottage Street Ashland, Ohio 44805

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
David Singleton Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 East 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

10/28/2008

Name of clerk of court Deputy clerk’s signature

(Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States allowed 60 days by Rule 12(a)(3).)

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons (Page 2)

Proof of Service

I declare under penalty of perjury that I served the summons and complaint in this case on by:
(1) personally delivering a copy of each to the individual at this place,

(2) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with who resides there and is of suitable age and discretion; or

(3) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive it whose name is ; or

(4) returning the summons unexecuted to the court clerk on

; or

(5) other (specify)

, ; or

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $ 0.00

. .

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Export

Import

Reset

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
_____N_o_r_th_e_rnDDisitsrtircict tooff_O_h_i_o______

Derek Hamilton, et al. Plaintiff v.
Ashland County Board of Elections, et al.
Defendant

) ) ) Civil Action No. ) )

Summons in a Civil Action

To: (Defendant’s name and address)
Jennifer Brunner Ohio Secretary of State 180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
David Singleton Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 East 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

10/28/2008

Name of clerk of court Deputy clerk’s signature

(Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States allowed 60 days by Rule 12(a)(3).)

O AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons (Page 2)

Proof of Service

I declare under penalty of perjury that I served the summons and complaint in this case on by:
(1) personally delivering a copy of each to the individual at this place,

(2) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with who resides there and is of suitable age and discretion; or

(3) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive it whose name is ; or

(4) returning the summons unexecuted to the court clerk on

; or

(5) other (specify)

, ; or

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $ 0.00

. .

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Export

Import

Reset

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISRICT OF OHIO DIVISION

Derek Hamilton et al.,

:

Case No. 1: 08-CV-02546

Plaintiffs,

:

vs.

:

Judge

Ashland County Board of Elections, et al., :

Defendants.

:

Magistrate Judge

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), Plaintiffs move for a Temporary Restraining
Order to protect their fundamental right to vote. A memorandum of law in support of this
Motion is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/David A. Singleton David A. Singleton (#0074556) Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen JohnsonGrove (Ohio#0078999) Margie Slagle (Ohio #0082217) * Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 E. 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel.: (513) 421-1108 Fax: (513) 562-3200 Email: dsingleton@ohiojpc.org
sjohnsongrove@ohiojpc.org mslagle@ohiojpc.org
* Seeking admission pro hac vice

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER I. Introduction Plaintiffs, who are incarcerated in the Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility in Ashland County (“Mohican”), seek emergency relief to block the Ashland County Board of Elections (“Board”) from denying them the right to vote in the upcoming election on November 4, 2008. Plaintiffs are eighteen years or older and are eligible to vote. Each resides at the Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility in Ashland County, Ohio (“Mohican”). Each registered to vote by the October 6, 2008 deadline. Each will have resided there for more than 30 days before the November 4, 2008 election. None are scheduled to be released before the election. Accordingly, they are each entitled to vote in Ashland County. On October 15, 2008, a local resident filed a challenge to Plaintiffs’ voter registrations, claiming that they should not be allowed to vote in Ashland County because they were only residing there temporarily. The Board of Elections scheduled a challenge hearing for October 24, 2008. Plaintiffs, however, did not receive notice of the hearing until October 23, 2008, the day before. Because they are incarcerated in a secure facility, Plaintiffs were unable to obtain court orders to allow them to attend the hearing, or to obtain the assistance of counsel to represent them at the hearing. Despite the fact that not a single Plaintiff was in attendance, the Board proceeded to hold this hearing and determined that Plaintiffs were ineligible to vote pursuant to R.C. 3503.02, the default rule for determining residence. But, the Board failed to consider that all the Plaintiffs are eligible to vote pursuant to R.C. § 3503.04 which requires inmates of public institutions to register in the county in which the institution is located. Had plaintiffs been afforded an opportunity to attend the hearing, they would have informed the Board of their right to register in
2

Ashland County. Instead, the Board voted to remove the plaintiffs from the registration list and deprive them of their fundamental right to vote.
II. Statement of the Facts A. Ohio Registration Laws
To vote in a general election in Ohio, an individual must register thirty days before the election and reside in the county in which he seeks to vote. R.C. § 3503.01. In order to qualify to register, an individual need only be a citizen, eighteen years old, “and who, if he continues to reside in the precinct until the next election, will at that time have fulfilled all the requirements as to length of residence to qualify him as an elector.” R.C. § 3505.07.
Ohio has three statutory provisions to determine the county of residence. The default rules for determining residence are found in R.C. § 3503.02. Additionally, Ohio has two exceptions to the default rule, one for inmates of soldiers’ homes and one for inmates of public or private institutions. R.C. § 3503.03; R.C. § 3503.04. These exceptions mandate that these inmates “shall have their lawful residence in the county, city, village and township in which said institution is located…,” provided the inmates are “qualified as to age and residence within the county….” R.C. § 3503.03; R.C. § 3503.04. Thus, inmates of soldiers’ homes, public, and private institutions who are eighteen years old and reside in the precinct at least thirty days prior to the election, shall register in the county where those institutions are located.
Ohio law allows a qualified voter to challenge the right to vote of any registered voter and seek a cancellation of his right to vote, but the challenge “shall be filed with the board on a form prescribed by the Secretary of State and shall be signed under penalty of election falsification.” R.C. § 3503.24. When a proper challenge is filed, a county board of elections is required to set a hearing and send notice to the challenged voter at least three days before the
3

hearing. Id. A challenge may be filed to question whether the voter has registered in the correct county.
B. The Plaintiffs. Derek Hamilton
Plaintiff Derek Hamilton is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Derek Hamilton at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 1). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Hamilton registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2.
Plaintiff Hamilton explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “My voting rights are very important to me – especially now that I have a young son. There are a lot of issues that matter to me and my family and it is very important to me that I make my voice be heard by voting.” Id. at ¶6.
Xavier Brock Plaintiff Xavier Brock is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Xavier Brock at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 2). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Brock registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Brock explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “It is very important that I be able to vote. This is my first election and I am concerned about the future of the country. I want my future to be bright. Some day I hope to own a business. Who the president is could impact my life and whether I will be able to achieve my dreams.” Id. at ¶6.
4

David Lee Sweazy Plaintiff David Lee Sweazy is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of David Lee Sweazy at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 3). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Sweazy registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Sweazy explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I really want to vote. I am worried about gas prices and high food costs. I am worried about my family. I want my voice to be heard.” Id. at ¶6.
Chevin Joseph Rought Plaintiff Chevin Joseph Rought is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Chevin Joseph Rought at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 4). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Rought registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Rought explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote for a couple of important reasons. First, I want to make my voice heard. Second, I just recently had a son. When my boy is old enough to understand, I want to tell him that I voted in my first election. I want to set an example for him to follow when he is old enough to vote.” Id. at ¶6.
Javon D. Patton Plaintiff Javon D. Patton is a nineteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Javon D. Patton at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 5). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election.
5

Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Patton registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2.
Plaintiff Patton explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “Voting is a big part of being an American. I want to vote so that I can make my voice heard on how the country should be run.” Id. at ¶7.
Jeremiah M. Ramos Plaintiff Jeremiah M. Ramos is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Jeremiah M. Ramos at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 6). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Ramos registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Ramos explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote because this is an important election. I keep hearing that the presidential election could come down to Ohio and that it could be close. I believe that every vote matters. I want to vote and have my voice heard.” Id. at ¶6.
Jabrail A. Wofford Plaintiff Jabrail A. Wofford is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Jabrail A. Wofford at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 7). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Wofford registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2.
6

Plaintiff Wofford explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “People I respect tell me that every vote matters and that I shouldn’t let my opportunity to vote go to waste. That’s why I want to vote.” Id. at ¶6.
Rameon J. Sumlin Plaintiff Rameon J. Sumlin is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Rameon J. Sumlin at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 8). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Sumlin registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Sumlin explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “Voting is important to me because there are not too many people in my family who take the opportunity to vote. I feel that because I am of age I should vote. Voting gives me the chance to express my views about who should run the country. Voting is an important responsibility.” Id. at ¶6.
James Mack Plaintiff James Mack is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of James Mack at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 9). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Mack registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Mack explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I really want to vote to make a difference and to have my voice heard. Voting is my right.” Id. at ¶7.
7

Markus H. Barrett Plaintiff Markus H. Barrett is over eighteen years old and is a United States citizen. (Declaration of Markus H. Barrett at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 10). He resides at Mohican. Id. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Barrett registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. ¶2. Plaintiff Barrett explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “It is very important to me that I vote on November 4, 2008 because I want to make a difference.” Id. at ¶7.
Raymond L. Welcher Plaintiff Raymond L. Welcher is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Raymond L. Welcher at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 11). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Welcher registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Welcher explained the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I really want to vote to have my say in how society should change.” Id. at ¶6.
Nicholas M. Seefong Plaintiff Nicholas M. Seefong is a twenty-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Nicholas M. Seefong at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 12). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Seefong registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2.
8

Plaintiff Seefong explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote because I will be released and I would like to have a voice and opinion about who leads this country since I will be impacted by his decisions and policies.” Id. at ¶6.
Taronn L. Allen Plaintiff Taronn L. Allen is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Taronn L. Allen at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 13). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Allen registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Allen explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I really want to vote. Now that I am old enough, I realize how important voting is. I’ve been paying attention to the election and want to vote.” Id. at ¶6.
Troy Tomlin Plaintiff Troy Tomlin is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Troy Tomlin at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 14). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Tomlin registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Tomlin explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “Because I am 18, I have the right to vote. Voting is something that is very important to me.” Id. at ¶7.
Nick S. Mallison Plaintiff Nick S. Mallison is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen, who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Nick S. Mallison at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 15). He will have
9

resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Mallison registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2.
Plaintiff Mallison explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote because one vote can make a difference. I want to be a part of deciding who runs the country. Now that I’ve turned eighteen, I want to make my voice heard by voting.” Id. at ¶6.
Roget Carr Plaintiff Roget Carr is an eighteen-year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. (Declaration of Roget Carr at ¶1, attached hereto as Exhibit 16). He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. Id. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Id. Plaintiff Carr registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline. Id. at ¶2. Plaintiff Carr explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote because my opinion is just as important as anyone else’s. Now that I am eighteen, I want to help choose who runs the country.” Id. at ¶6.
C. The Deprivation of Plaitiffs’ Voting Rights. Shortly before the voting registration deadline, The Ohio Justice and Policy Center (“OJPC”) organized a lawful voter registration drive within DYS facilities. (Slagle Declaration at ¶7). OJPC staff and volunteers registered youth at the following facilities: Indian River Juvenile Correctional Facility in Stark County; Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility in Marion County; Ohio River Valley Correctional Facility in Scioto County; Circleville Juvenile Correctional Facility in Pickaway County; Scioto Juvenile Correctional Facility in Delaware County; and Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility in Ashland County. Id. To the knowledge
10

of Plaintiffs’ counsel, only the youth from Mohican have had their registrations cancelled on the alleged basis that they reside within the county only temporarily. Id.
On October 15, Michael Barrett, an alleged registered voter in Ashland County, filed a Challenge to Registered Voters as Unqualified Electors with the Board questioning whether the Plaintiffs’ were residents of Ashland County. (Barrett Challenge, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Margie Slagle, attached hereto as Exhibit 17). Specifically, the Challenge alleged that Plaintiffs were not residents of Ashland County pursuant to R.C. § 3503.02 (A) and (C) because they entered Ashland County on a temporary basis and had no intention of making Ashland County their permanent residence. Id.
Pursuant to R.C. § 3503.24, the Board scheduled a hearing for October 24, 2008, to determine whether Barrett’s challenge should be granted. (Hamilton Declaration at ¶3). However, Plaintiffs, all of whom received the notice on October 23, 2008, were not provided sufficient notice to enable them to seek attorneys and a court order allowing them to leave the facility. See Plaintiffs’ Declarations (Hamilton Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Brock Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Sweazy Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Rought Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Patton Declaration at ¶¶4-5; Ramos Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Wofford Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Sumlin Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Mack Declaration at ¶¶4-5; Barrett Declaration at ¶¶4-5; Welcher Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Seefong Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Allen Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Tomlin Declaration at ¶¶4-5; Mallison Declaration at ¶¶3-4; Carr Declaration at ¶¶3-4). Moreover, the Board did not issue subpoenas compelling Plaintiffs’ attendance. (Slagle Declaration at ¶6). Consequently, Plaintiffs were unable to attend the hearing.
At the hearing, the Board heard only from Barrett, who testified that Plaintiffs were ineligible to register in Ashland County under the rules for determining residence contained in
11

R.C. § 3503.02 (A) and (C).1 (Transcript of Hearing at 4-5, attached to Slagle Declaration as
Exhibit B). Specifically, he presumed that Plaintiffs were in the county on a temporary basis
only and had no intention to make Ashland County their permanent home. Id. Barrett testified:
“I would put forth, once they are released from state custody, they will not stay in the area of
Mohican Youth Center, or in the county for that matter.” Id. at 4. He then dismissively claimed:
“they likely don’t even know what county they’re in; and they surely don’t know what part of the
county they are in if they do. So, I’m fairly certain that upon questioning, they will tell us that
they will not plan on residing in Ashland County once the state releases them from custody.” Id.
at 5-6.
The Board then sought testimony from the Plaintiffs, presumably to inquire whether they
intended to make Ashland County their permanent home. Id. at 7-8. When the Board learned
that none of the Plaintiffs were present, they proceeded to make their decision without hearing from the Plaintiffs and unanimously voted2 that the Plaintiffs were not residents of Ashland
County. Id. at 9.
III. Argument
A. Plaintiffs Can Demonstrate a Substantial Likelihood of Success.
1. Canceling Plaintiffs Registration without Adequate Notice and a Meaningful Hearing Violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has held that “[n]o right is more precious in a free country than that
of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we 1 R.C. § 3503.02 (A) states: “That place shall be considered the residence of a person in
which the person's habitation is fixed and to which, whenever the person is absent, the person has the intention of returning.” R.C. § 3503.02 (C) states: “A person shall not be considered to have gained a residence in any county of this state into which the person comes for temporary purposes only, without the intention of making such county the permanent place of abode.”
2 Mr. David Samsel was not present for the hearing.
12

must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17, 84 S.Ct. 526, (1964). Cancelling an individual’s right to vote, implicates a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bell v. Marinko, 235 F.Supp.2d 772, 777 (N.D.Ohio 2002). The Due Process Clause requires notice that is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002).
The notice that Defendants sent was not calculated to afford the Plaintiffs an opportunity to attend the hearing and present their objections. First, the Plaintiffs received the notice on October 23, only one day before the scheduled hearing. As the Defendants well knew, Plaintiffs are confined to a juvenile facility and cannot freely leave to attend a hearing. Had the Plaintiffs had more time, they could have sought a court order allowing them to attend the hearing. But, a 24 hour notice is not enough time to find attorneys and seek the requisite court orders. The Defendants could have notified Plaintiffs sooner since they received the challenge on October 15. Or the Defendants could have issued subpoenas compelling the Plaintiffs to attend. Instead, the Board sent a late notice that they should have known would not provide adequate time for the Plaintiffs to attend and participate in the hearing in a meaningful way.
Despite the fact that Plaintiffs were not in attendance, the Board proceeded with the hearing. The only substantive testimony the Board considered was from the challenger, Michael Barrett. Barrett alleged that the juveniles were not eligible to vote in Ashland County based on R.C. § 3503.02, the default rule to determine residency. To support this conclusion, he testified that the plaintiffs were temporary residents who had no intention of making Ashland County
13

their permanent home. He then questioned whether they even realized they were in Ashland County and claimed that: “So, I’m fairly certain that upon questioning, they will tell us that they will not plan on residing in Ashland County once the state releases them from custody.” But no one questioned the plaintiffs regarding their intentions. Instead, the board voted to disenfranchise the Plaintiffs based solely on the musings of Michael Barrett.
To add insult to injury, the Board completely failed to realize that Michael Barrett had applied the wrong residency statute to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not governed by the default statute. Rather, they are governed by one of the exceptions to the general rule that determines where inmates of a public institution shall register. R.C. § 3503.04 mandates that inmates “shall have their lawful residence in the county, city, village and township in which said institution is located…,” provided the inmates are “qualified as to age and residence within the county….” Plaintiffs meet both of the qualifications as to age and residence within the county. All of the plaintiffs are citizens, eighteen or older, who will have resided in the precinct at least thirty days prior to the election. See Section 1, Article V of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. § 3503.07.
Had the plaintiffs been afforded adequate time to seek counsel and participate in the hearing, the Plaintiffs would have informed the Board they were duly registered pursuant to R.C. § 3505.07. But the unconstitutional deprivation of their Due Process Rights has resulted in an erroneous decision by the Board that has unlawfully disenfranchised the Plaintiffs.
2. Canceling Plaintiffs Registration without Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiffs are being treated differently than other DYS residents who registered to vote in their county of confinement. To the knowledge of Plaintiffs’ counsel, DYS residents who registered to vote in other counties – specifically, Marion, Scioto, Delaware, Stark County, and
14

Pickaway Counties – have not had their registrations cancelled. The right of these young voters to vote should not depend on the county where they live.
The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution forbids such a result. Like state poll taxes that have been struck down on equal protection grounds, see Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 667-668 (1966), Ohio’s unequal application of voter registration requirements for youth incarcerated in DYS facilities wrongfully excludes from the polls those who live in Ashland County. In Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court stated, “the fundamental principle of representative government in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people, without regard to race, sex, economic status, or place of residence within a State.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 561-562.
Thus, Plaintiffs’ are likely to prevail on their Equal Protection claim. B. Plaintiffs will Suffer Irreparable Harm if Disenfranchised Plaintiffs seek to protect their right to vote, a right that ranks among the most fundamental in our society. See, e. g. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972); Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, 626 (1969). The Plaintiffs lawfully registered to vote and looked forward to voting for the very first time, yet they will be denied their right to vote on November 4 without court intervention. As the Sixth Circuit has long recognized, when it comes to infringements of fundamental constitutional rights, courts may find irreparable injury “stem[ming] from… ‘the fear that, if these rights are not jealously safeguarded, persons will be deterred, even if imperceptibly, from exercising those rights in the future.’” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099v. Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, 163 F.3d 341, 363 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that infringing upon the union’s First Amendment rights constituted irreparable harm); see also
15

Miller v. Blackwell, 348 F.Supp.2d 916, 922, (S.D.Ohio 2004), aff’d per curiam, 388 F.3d 546
(6th Cir. 2004) (finding that because “the Defendants' challenged actions threaten or impair both
Plaintiffs' constitutional right to due process and constitutional right to vote, the Court must find
that Plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable injury if the temporary restraining order does not issue.”);
Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir.2002)
(“[c]ourts have also held that a plaintiff can demonstrate that a denial of an injunction will cause
irreparable harm if the claim is based upon a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.”).
For these reasons, tampering with the Plaintiffs right to vote immediately before an
election threatens a quintessential form of harm, one courts regularly address through the
issuance of injunctive relief.
C. The Injury Plaintiffs Will Suffer Greatly Outweighs any Harm to a Third Party
As discussed above, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if this order is not granted.
Meanwhile, there is no cognizable injury that any third party would suffer if injunctive relief is granted. Any harm to a third party is speculative and unfounded, and therefore outweighed by the irreparable harms Plaintiffs face absent injunctive relief.
D. The Public Interest Favors the Granting of this Order
In the National Voters Registration Act, Congress declared that:
(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right; (2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right; and (3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.
(b) Purposes The purposes of this subchapter are--
16

(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office; (2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this subchapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office; (3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and (4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.
42 USC § 1873gg.
The public interest is furthered when all citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right to
vote.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ request for a
preliminary injunction.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/David A. Singleton David A. Singleton (#0074556) Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen JohnsonGrove (Ohio#0078999) Margie Slagle (Ohio #0082217) * Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 E. 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel.: (513) 421-1108 Fax: (513) 562-3200 Email: dsingleton@ohiojpc.org
sjohnsongrove@ohiojpc.org mslagle@ohiojpc.org
* Seeking admission pro hac vice
17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Temporary Restraining Order was filed electronically on October 27, 2008. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/DAVID A. SINGLETON David A. Singleton
18

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DEREK HAMILTON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ASHLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

) CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2546 ) ) ) ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). (ECF # 2, 7). Defendants, Ashland County Board of Elections and individually named Board Members, filed a joint response, and the Ohio Secretary of State filed its own separate response to the Motion for TRO. (ECF # 8, 12). Because the Complaint addresses issues related to the election on November 4, 2008 (four days from now), and a final judgment on the merits of the underlying Complaint would be moot after that time, the Court ordered a full evidentiary hearing to be held on October 31, 2008. At this hearing, the parties presented evidence in the form of witnesses, affidavits, and exhibits, fully addressing the merits of the underlying Complaint. The parties were given the opportunity to

present any evidence they believed was relevant to the issues before the Court. Having heard and reviewed all of the relevant evidence and arguments presented by the parties, for the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a TRO is DENIED, and the First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.
I. BACKGROUND1 The Ohio Justice & Policy Center (“OJPC”) is a non-profit, non-partisan, public interest organization that, among other things, works to help offenders successfully re-enter the community. As part of its mission, OJPC helped to register young adults (18-21), who are detained at Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) institutions housing youth offenders, to vote in the upcoming November 4, 2008 elections. As part of this registration drive, an OJPC volunteer helped Plaintiffs register to vote in Ashland County. Plaintiffs are housed at Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility (“Mohican”), which is located in Ashland County, Ohio. Plaintiffs are all between 18 and 21; all registered before the October 6, 2008 registration cut-off; all will have been housed in Ashland County for more than 30 days before the election; and none are scheduled to be released prior to the election. On October 15, 2008, a resident of Ashland County filed a challenge to Plaintiffs’ voter registrations, claiming that, under Ohio law, they did not qualify as residents of Ashland County and were, therefore, ineligible to vote in that County. The Board of Elections scheduled a hearing on October 24, 2008, to address the challenge. The director of the Board of Elections contacted
1
The factual summary is based upon the statements of fact provided by the parties. Where facts are in dispute, the Court has taken the facts from courtroom testimony, affidavit, or other evidence. Any information presented but not supported by evidence at the hearing is stated in the light most favorable to the party who does not bear the burden of proof.
-2-

the staff at Mohican about the hearing on October 16, 2008, on October 17, 2008, and on October 20, 2008. (Def. Response, Ex. C: Affidavit of Shannon Leininger). Written notice of the exact time and place of the hearing was mailed to each Plaintiff on October 19, 2008. (Def. Response, Ex. C: Affidavit of Shannon Leininger). The written notices were received at Mohican on October 23, 2008. (Pl. Motion, Ex. 1-16: Plaintiffs’ Affidavits; Pl. Reply, Ex. B: Affidavit of Karen Wood; Def. Response, Ex. D: Affidavit of Michael Donatini). DYS would not allow Plaintiffs to attend the hearing without a Court order. (Def. Response, Ex. D: Affidavit of Michael Donatini).
The Board held the hearing. Plaintiffs did not attend and were not represented by counsel. The Board ruled that under the applicable statutes, Plaintiffs were not residents of Ashland County for purposes of voter registration, and Plaintiffs were removed from the registration list. Plaintiffs now challenge that ruling.
II. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs raise four claims for relief in their First Amended Complaint: Violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Violations of the First Amendment, and Violations of State Registration Law. They seek injunction relief requiring the Ashland County Board of Elections to return them to the registration list and to provide them with absentee ballots. A. Due Process Claim Plaintiffs claim that they were deprived of their right to vote in the upcoming election without the benefit of due process. There is no doubt that the right to vote is a fundamental right
-3-

deserving of due process protections. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17, 84 S. Ct. 526 (1964); Bell v. Marinko, 235 F. Supp. 2d 772, 777 (N.D. Ohio 2002). The Due Process Clause requires that a party be given notice “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 1261, 168, 122 S. Ct. 694 (2002); see also, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).
Part of the circumstances to be considered in this case are the expediency issues associated with obtaining a timely decision from the Board of Elections on voter registration challenges. In order to assure timely decisions on elections matters, Directive No. 2008-79 of the Ohio Secretary of State requires that a hearing on a challenge to voter registration “shall be held, and the challenge decided, no later than ten days after the board receives the challenge.” The expediency requirement is a protection for voters meant to ensure, whenever possible, that they have time to take corrective action if their registration is successfully challenged for some deficiency that could be corrected. In this case, the Board received the challenge on October 15, 2008, and the case was heard and decided nine days later, on Friday, October 24.
To provide timely notice of a hearing, Ohio Revised Code §3503.24 (made applicable to these types of challenges through Directive No. 2008-79 of the Ohio Secretary of State) requires the Board of Elections to send notice of a hearing by first class mail at least three days prior to a hearing, and encourages the Board to send notice sooner than that (8-10 days prior) whenever it is practicable, in order to further ensure that due process requirements are met. In this case, the director of the Board of Elections contacted the staff at Mohican about the hearing on October 16, 2008 (the day after the challenge was filed and eight days before the hearing took place), and on
-4-

October 17, 2008, and on October 20, 2008. (Def. Response, Ex. C: Affidavit of Shannon Leininger). Written notice of the exact time and place of the hearing was mailed on October 19, 2008, five days prior to the hearing. (Def. Response, Ex. C: Affidavit of Shannon Leininger). The written notices were received at Mohican on October 23, 2008, and on that date, an attorney with the Ashland County Prosecutor’s Office spoke with DYS legal staff to see if Plaintiffs would be released to attend the hearing. (Pl. Motion, Ex. 1-16: Plaintiffs’ Affidavits; Pl. Reply, Ex. B: Affidavit of Karen Wood; Def. Response, Ex. D: Affidavit of Michael Donatini). The attorney was told that DYS would not allow Plaintiffs to attend without a Court order. (Def. Response, Ex. D: Affidavit of Michael Donatini). The Defendants in this case cannot be held responsible for any failure of Mohican or DYS to pass information onto the Plaintiffs or for its decision not to allow Plaintiffs to attend the hearing. Clearly, having contacted Plaintiffs’ legal custodians four times between the filing of the challenge and the hearing, and having mailed the written notification of the hearing five days prior, the Board of Elections was diligent in its efforts to notify Plaintiffs of the hearing, and was in compliance with O.R.C. §3503.24 and Directive No. 2008-79 of the Ohio Secretary of State.
Further, Plaintiffs themselves affirmed that they received the written notification prior to the hearing (the day before). They had the opportunity, at that point, to attempt to arrange for some representative to appear on their behalf; to seek the aid of staff at Mohican or DYS to help them address the issue; or, to contact the Board of Elections directly to request a continuance. There is no evidence that any such attempt was ever made.
At the hearing, the Board appears to have considered both of the statutes Plaintiffs claim are relevant to the matter. (Board Transcript at p. 9). They admittedly took testimony and
-5-

considered evidence even though there was no representative for Plaintiffs present to contest the challenge. (Pl. Motion at 13). Further, Plaintiffs argument that the Board did not consider whether any of them intended to remain in Ashland County after their release is rendered meaningless by their failure to offer any evidence of such an intent in support of their Motion for a TRO, or at the subsequent hearing before this Court.
Under all of the circumstances, it appears to this Court that the Board of Elections took great pains to notify Plaintiffs of the hearing in a timely manner, and did everything within its power to afford them an opportunity to present their objections. The Board of Elections cannot be held responsible for Plaintiffs’ inability to capitalize on this opportunity due to the nature of their detention. It appears to have done everything it could reasonably be expected to do to comply with the applicable law, and to inform Plaintiffs and their custodians that the hearing would be taking place. Plaintiffs, therefore, were afforded all necessary due process by the Defendants.
B. Equal Protection Plaintiffs claim that they are being denied equal protection because other DYS residents, who are similarly situated, have been treated differently with regard to their ability to vote in their county of confinement. The Equal Protection Clause directs that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Plaintiffs have offered no evidence, however, to show that the other DYS residents they cite are actually similarly situated. First of all, there is no evidence that any other DYS residents have registered in Ashland County or have been subject to decisions made by Defendants in this case. Secondly, there is no actual evidence that any other DYS residents have registered in a county in which they were not residents prior to their detention, or in a county they intend to leave
-6-

after they are released from detention. Finally, there is no evidence that any other DYS residents have had their registration challenged. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that any other DYS residents are similarly situated with regard to this voter registration issue.
The Court, therefore finds that Plaintiffs have not presented evidence sufficient to establish that any similarly situated people have been treated differently on this issue, let alone that they have been treated differently by these Defendants. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim must fail.
C. Free Speech The claim for an alleged violation of free speech was presented for the first time in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, and was not argued by any party in the TRO briefing, or at the evidentiary hearing. However, this claim can be dismissed as a matter of law. The right of free speech has never been absolute. The United States Supreme Court has long held that, although the constitutional right of a citizen to vote is unquestioned, this right is subject to the imposition of appropriate state standards and regulations. See, Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336-37 (1972); Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. Of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 50-51 (1959). There are many reasons why residency requirements are necessary and important restrictions on the voting process. First and foremost, such restrictions do not prevent a person from exercising their right to vote, rather they merely direct them as to where they should submit that vote. It is obviously also important to ensure that people with no ties to a local community are not able to dilute the vote of residents on local ballot issues. Residency requirements are also clearly necessary to ensure the proper administration, collection, and recording of ballots and as a means of tracking voters and preventing voter fraud. As a matter of law, residency requirements
-7-

are a reasonable, necessary, and extremely minor restriction on the right to vote, and they do not impermissibly interfere with voters’ First Amendment rights.
D. State Registration Laws Chapter 3503 of the Ohio Revised Code sets forth the qualifications and registration requirements for voting in Ohio. Sections 3503.01 through 3503.05 are listed as “[Qualifications],” and Sections 3503.06 through 3503.33 are listed as “[Registration].” Plaintiffs claim that § 3503.04 is the relevant statute relating to their ability to vote in the county in which they are currently detained. O.R.C. § 3503.04 states as follows: Persons who are inmates of a public or private institution who are citizens of the United States and have resided in this state thirty days immediately preceding the election, and who are otherwise qualified as to age and residence within the county shall have their lawful residence in the county, city, village and township in which said institution is located provided, that the lawful residence of a qualified elector who is an inmate in such an institution for temporary treatment only, shall be the residence from which he entered such institution.
Plaintiffs argue that this section creates an exception to the residency requirements set forth in O.R.C. §3503.02, allowing them to claim residency in the county in which they are detained. Plaintiffs claim that they are inmates of Mohican, a public institution, that they are citizens of the United States, that they have resided in the state for thirty days immediately prior to the election, that they are otherwise qualified as to age and residency in Ashland County, and that they are not inmates “for temporary treatment only.”
Defendants argue that this section does not apply to Plaintiffs because they are not techincally “inmates.” Alternatively, they argue that the section does not benefit Plaintiffs because they are in the institution for “temporary treatment only,” and are not “otherwise qualified
-8-

as to residence within the county.” Defendants submitted the testimony of Judge Damien Vercillo to support their contention
that youth offenders in DYS facilities are not referred to as “inmates.” Plaintiffs gained a concession from this witness that he is not an expert in elections law and has no idea how the general assembly would have defined “inmate” relative to this particular statute. The term “inmate” is not defined in Chapter 3503.
Defendants also submitted evidence through Judge Vercillo’s testimony that offenders are only temporarily detained at DYS facilities, and that Mohican specializes in offenders with substance abuse problems, and that it offers treatment programs which are a normal part of the protocol at that facility. They argue that Plaintiffs are at Mohican for temporary treatment, and that they, therefore, are residents of their hometown for voter registration purposes.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, obtained testimony from Judge Vercillo that offenders housed at Mohican are not there for “treatment only.” They then argued that, temporary or not, Plaintiffs are not in the institution “for temporary treatment only.” Therefore, under the statute, they say Plaintiffs should be able to vote in the county of their detention. Chapter 3503 does not define or otherwise explain “temporary,” “treatment,” or “temporary treatment only.”
The statute is unclear as to its meaning in determining who is an “inmate” and who is confined for “temporary treatment only.” There are arguments to be had on both sides with regard to these terms, and the legislative history offers no help in deciphering the General Assembly’s intent. However, this Court need not make a determination on these terms to resolve the question at hand.2 Section 3503.04 requires that in order for an “inmate” to “have their lawful residence in
2
It is fortuitous that these terms need not be deciphered to answer the question at issue in -9-

the county, city, village and township in which said institution is located,” they must be
“otherwise qualified as to age3 and residence within the county.”4
To determine whether Plaintiffs are “otherwise qualified” as to residence within the
county, the Court must look to the other “qualification” sections within Chapter 3503. Section
3503.01 defines age and residence qualifications as follows:
Every citizen of the United States who is of the age of eighteen years or over and who has been a resident of the state thirty days immediately preceding the election at which the citizen offers to vote, is a resident of the county and precinct in which the citizen offers to vote, and has been registered to vote for thirty days, has the qualifications of an elector...
According to this section, which sets for the basic qualifications for voting in Ohio, a citizen must
be a resident of the county and precinct in which he/she offers to vote, in order to be qualified.
Section 3503.02 sets forth the rules for determining residency. The applicable portion of
§3503.02 (subsection C) reads as follows:
A person shall not be considered to have gained a residence in any county of this state into which the person comes for temporary purposes only, without the intention of making such county the permanent place of abode.
this case as the interpretation of such an important state law, in the absence of any real indication from the state legislature as to its meaning, is a matter better suited to the state courts. 3 There is no dispute that these Plaintiffs are qualified as to age.
4
It would appear that this section may not have been intended as an exception to the county residency requirement, but rather, to allow an “inmate” to claim an address for purposes of receiving an absentee ballot and to provide a city, village, and township of residence within their county of general residency, if they had no other address. This would be similar to the protections now being offered to homeless voters in some areas allowing them to register a shelter or a general location as an address for voter registration purposes.
-10-

Plaintiffs have essentially conceded that they do not satisfy the requirements of § 3503.02 because they have submitted no evidence or argument to indicate that they are in Ashland County for anything other than temporary purposes, or that they have the intention of making Ashland their permanent place of abode. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot establish residency in Ashland County under O.R.C. §3503.02(C), which, in turn, means they cannot satisfy the qualification requirements of O.R.C. §3503.01, which, in turn, means they are not “otherwise qualified” as to residence in the county with regard to O.R.C. §3503.04.
Residency requirements have been incorporated into Ohio’s voting statutes for many important reasons. Possibly the most important of which is the reality that, although federal elections garner the most press and attention during presidential election years, there are also a great number of local elections issues that will have a very direct and important influence on the lives of the local residents in each individual county.
Registration of individuals who do not meet the statutory residency requirements to vote in a particular county may very well have a detrimental effect on local residents by diluting the vote of these individuals who will be directly affected by the local election issues. Further, denying registration to individuals who do not meet the statutory requirements for residency in a particular county is not tantamount to denying them a voice or a vote in the election. These individuals are allowed and encouraged to exercise their right to vote in the county in which they actually do maintain residence under the Ohio’s statutory scheme.
There is no doubt that there are a few circumstances in which determining residency is not as clear cut a question as it may seem on its face. It is, however, the voters’ personal responsibility to ensure that they are registered to vote in the right county and that all other
-11-

qualifications and requirements have been met. The right to vote is an individual right, and although there are many laudable organizations that have made it their goal to advise and assist people in the execution of this right, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with the applicable laws rests with each individual. This Court’s role is to determine whether, in fact, the law has been satisfied and voters are properly registered in the correct county. Counsel for Plaintiffs submitted evidence that an employee of the Secretary of State’s office told OJPC that Plaintiffs could register in the county in which they are detained.5 Unfortunately, even though they may have been misguided or otherwise justifiably mistaken in their evaluation of whether O.R.C. §§ 3503.02 and 3502.04 gave Plaintiffs the legal right to vote in Ashland County, this Court may not waive statutory requirements. Despite any good faith efforts of the voters or any organization aiding or assisting them to comply with those requirements, if the qualifications and requirements are not, in fact, met, the registration is not valid.
The unfortunate practical result of this case will be that these Plaintiffs will not be able to cast a vote in the upcoming election. This end result, however, stems not from the Court’s decision on the merits of the Complaint, but rather from the fact that there is now insufficient time for Plaintiffs to register in the proper county. Time is of the essence in elections issues. Because Plaintiffs did not register until October 6, 2008 and subsequently a challenge was not issued until October 15, 2008, the Board of Elections hearing could not have been scheduled sooner than eleven days before the election. Therefore, Plaintiffs did not receive the benefit of the Board’s decision in time to register in the county of their true residency. Had they mistakenly registered in
The information was informally provided over the phone in response to an email sent by OJPC; it was not a formal memorandum or directive, and was not issued by Jennifer Brunner, the Secretary of State.
-12-

Ashland County much earlier in the process, there would have been time subsequent to any challenge and adverse decision to allow them to register in the proper county and still preserve their ability to cast a vote in this election. Because they registered so late in the process, this Court, therefore, is put in the undesirable position of rendering a decision which, though correct and necessary under the law, makes it impossible for sixteen otherwise qualified and capable citizens to vote in this important election.

III. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 2) is DENIED, and the First Amended Complaint (ECF #7) is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: October 31, 2008

/s/ Donald C. Nugent DONALD C. NUGENT United States District Judge

-13-

 
 Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 10/31/08 1 of 1. PageID #: 234

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DEREK HAMILTON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ASHLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

) CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2546 ) ) ) ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiff’s
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 2) is DENIED, and the First Amended
Complaint (ECF #7) is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Donald C. Nugent DONALD C. NUGENT United States District Judge
DATE: October 31, 2008

 
 Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 1 of 18. PageID #: 117

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Derek Hamilton Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
Xavier Brock Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,

:

Case No. 1:08-CV-02546

:

:

Judge Nugent

:

:

Magistrate Judge

David Lee Sweazy Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
Chevin Joseph Rout Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,

:
: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
:
:
:

Javon D. Patton

:

Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility

1012 ODNR Mohican 51

:

Perrysville, Ohio 44864,

:

Jeremiah M. Ramos

Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility

:

1012 ODNR Mohican 51

Perrysville, Ohio 44864,

:

Jabrail A. Wofford

:

Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility

1012 ODNR Mohican 51

:

Perrysville, Ohio 44864,

:

Rameon J. Sumlin

Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility

:

1012 ODNR Mohican 51

Perrysville, Ohio 44864,

:

James Mack

:

Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility

1012 ODNR Mohican 51

:

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 2 of 18. PageID #: 118

Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
Markus H. Barrett Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
Raymond L. Welcher Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
Nicholas M. Seefong Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
Taronn L. Allen Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
Troy Tomlin Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
Nick S. Mallison Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
and
Roget Carr Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility 1012 ODNR Mohican 51 Perrysville, Ohio 44864,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Ashland County Board of Elections 110 Cottage Street, Ashland, Ohio 44805,

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
2

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 3 of 18. PageID #: 119

:

Dennis Ragle

in his official capacity

:

Ashland County Board of Elections

110 Cottage Street,

:

Ashland, Ohio 44805,

:

Bonnie Manos

in her official capacity

:

Ashland County Board of Elections

110 Cottage Street,

:

Ashland, Ohio 44805,

:

George Bringman

in his official capacity

:

Ashland County Board of Elections

110 Cottage Street,

:

Ashland, Ohio 44805,

:

David Samsel

Ashland County Board of Elections

:

110 Cottage Street,

Ashland, Ohio 44805,

:

and

:

Jennifer Brunner

:

Secretary of State, State of Oho

in her official capacity

:

180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

:

Defendants.

:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Plaintiffs, all first time voters, bring this action to enjoin Defendants from the imminent, unlawful deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to vote. The Defendants have disenfranchised Plaintiffs by removing their names from the registration list without

3

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 4 of 18. PageID #: 120
adequate notice or procedural protections, and in clear violation of state law registration requirements.
2. Plaintiffs are eighteen years or older and are eligible to vote. Each resides at the Mohican Juvenile Correctional Facility in Ashland County, Ohio (“Mohican”). Each registered to vote by the October 6, 2008 deadline. Each will have resided there for more than 30 days before the November 4, 2008 election. None are scheduled to be released from Mohican before the election. Accordingly, they are each entitled to vote in Ashland County.
3. On October 15, 2008, a local resident filed a challenge to Plaintiffs’ voter registrations, claiming that they should not be allowed to vote in Ashland County because they were only residing there temporarily. The Board of Elections scheduled a challenge hearing for October 24, 2008. Plaintiffs, however, did not receive notice of the hearing until October 23, 2008. Because they are incarcerated in a secure facility, Plaintiffs were unable to obtain court orders to allow them to attend the hearing, or to obtain the assistance of counsel to represent them at the hearing.
4. Despite the fact that not a single Plaintiff was in attendance, the Board proceeded to hold this hearing and determined that Plaintiffs were ineligible to vote pursuant to R.C. 3503.02, the default rule for determining residence. But, the Board failed to consider that Plaintiffs are eligible to vote pursuant to R.C. § 3503.04, which requires inmates of public institutions to register in the county in which the institution is located. Had plaintiffs been afforded an opportunity to attend the hearing, they would have informed the Board of their right to register in Ashland County. Instead, the Board voted to remove Plaintiffs from the registration list and deprive them of their fundamental right to vote.
4

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 5 of 18. PageID #: 121
5. Plaintiffs seek emergency injunctive relief ordering Defendant Board of Elections officials to reinstate Plaintiffs’ voter registrations and permit them to vote in Ashland County via absentee ballot.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This action is brought under the 42 U.S.C ¶ 1983. Jurisdiction over claims brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343 (3) and (4). 7. Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims may be exercised by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and Civ. R. 82.1 because Defendants reside in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
PARTIES Plaintiffs Derek Hamilton 9. Plaintiff Derek Hamilton is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Hamilton registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 10. Plaintiff Hamilton explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “My voting rights are very important to me – especially now that I have a young son. There are a lot of issues that matter to me and my family and it is very important to me that I make my voice be heard by voting.” Xavier Brock
5

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 6 of 18. PageID #: 122
11. Plaintiff Xavier Brock is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Brock registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot.
12. Plaintiff Brock explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “It is very important that I be able to vote. This is my first election and I am concerned about the future of the country. I want my future to be bright. Some day I hope to own a business. Who the president is could impact my life and whether I will be able to achieve my dreams.”
David Lee Sweazy 13. Plaintiff David Lee Sweazy is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Sweazy registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 14. Plaintiff Sweazy explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I really want to vote. I am worried about gas prices and high food costs. I am worried about my family. I want my voice to be heard.”
Chevin Joseph Rought 15. Plaintiff Chevin Joseph Rought is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008.
6

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 7 of 18. PageID #: 123
Plaintiff Rought registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot.
16. Plaintiff Rought explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote for a couple of important reasons. First, I want to make my voice heard. Second, I just recently had a son. When my boy is old enough to understand, I want to tell him that I voted in my first election. I want to set an example for him to follow when he is old enough to vote.”
Javon D. Patton 17. Plaintiff Javon D. Patton is a nineteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Patton registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 18. Plaintiff Patton explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “Voting is a big part of being an American. I want to vote so that I can make my voice heard on how the country should be run.”
Jeremiah M. Ramos 19. Plaintiff Jeremiah M. Ramos is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Ramos registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 20. Plaintiff Ramos explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote because this is an important election. I keep hearing that the presidential election could
7

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 8 of 18. PageID #: 124
come down to Ohio and that it could be close. I believe that every vote matters. I want to vote and have my voice heard.”
Jabrail A. Wofford 21. Plaintiff Jabrail A. Wofford is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Wofford registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 22. Plaintiff Wofford explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “People I respect tell me that every vote matters and that I shouldn’t let my opportunity to vote go to waste. That’s why I want to vote.”
Rameon J. Sumlin 23. Plaintiff Rameon J. Sumlin is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Sumlin registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 24. Plaintiff Sumlin explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “Voting is important to me because there are not too many people in my family who take the opportunity to vote. I feel that because I am of age I should vote. Voting gives me the chance to express my views about who should run the country. Voting is an important responsibility.”
James Mack
8

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 9 of 18. PageID #: 125
25. Plaintiff James Mack is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Mack registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot.
26. Plaintiff Mack explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I really want to vote to make a difference and to have my voice heard. Voting is my right.”
Markus H. Barrett 27. Plaintiff Markus H. Barrett is over eighteen years old and is a United States citizen. He resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Barrett registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 28. Plaintiff Barrett explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “It is very important to me that I vote on November 4, 2008 because I want to make a difference.”
Raymond L. Welcher 29. Plaintiff Raymond L. Welcher is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Welcher registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 30. Plaintiff Welcher explained the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I really want to vote to have my say in how society should change.”
9

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 10 of 18. PageID #: 126
Nicholas M. Seefong 31. Plaintiff Nicholas M. Seefong is a twenty year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Seefong registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 32. Plaintiff Seefong explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote because I will be released and I would like to have a voice and opinion about who leads this country since I will be impacted by his decisions and policies.”
Taronn L. Allen 33. Plaintiff Taronn L. Allen is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Allen registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 34. Plaintiff Allen explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I really want to vote. Now that I am old enough, I realize how important voting is. I’ve been paying attention to the election and want to vote.”
Troy Tomlin 35. Plaintiff Troy Tomlin is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008.
10

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 11 of 18. PageID #: 127
Plaintiff Tomlin registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot.
36. Plaintiff Tomlin explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “Because I am 18, I have the right to vote. Voting is something that is very important to me.”
Nick S. Mallison 37. Plaintiff Nick S. Mallison is an eighteen year-old United States citizen, who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Mallison registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 38. Plaintiff Mallison explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote because one vote can make a difference. I want to be a part of deciding who runs the country. Now that I’ve turned eighteen, I want to make my voice heard by voting.”
Roget Carr 39. Plaintiff Roget Carr is an eighteen year-old United States citizen who resides at Mohican. He will have resided at Mohican in excess of thirty days immediately before the November 4, 2008 election. He is not scheduled to be released before November 4, 2008. Plaintiff Carr registered to vote in Ashland County before the October 6, 2008 deadline, and requested that he be provided an absentee ballot. 40. Plaintiff Carr explains the importance of his voting rights as follows: “I want to vote because my opinion is just as important as anyone else’s. Now that I am eighteen, I want to help choose who runs the country.”
Defendants
11

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 12 of 18. PageID #: 128
Ashland County Board of Elections (County Defendant) 41. Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a public quasi-corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, charged with conducting, managing, and overseeing elections within its geographical jurisdiction. As part of its duties, Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections determines voter eligibility and provides information to Ashland County residents, including ex-offenders, inquiring about their eligibility to vote. Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections is, for all purposes herein, a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Dennis Ragle (County Defendant) 42. Defendant Dennis Ragle is a member of the Ashland County Board of Elections. As such, he is responsible for discharging the duties of the Board, including determining voter eligibility. Defendant Ragle is sued in his official capacity.
Bonnie Manos (County Defendant) 43. Defendant Bonnie Manos is a member of the Ashland County Board of Elections. As such, she is responsible for discharging the duties of the Board, including determining voter eligibility. Defendant Manos is sued in her official capacity.
George Bringman (County Defendant) 44. Defendant George Bringman is a member of the Ashland County Board of Elections. As such, he is responsible for discharging the duties of the Board, including determining voter eligibility. Defendant Bringman is sued in his official capacity.
David Samsel (County Defendant)
12

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 13 of 18. PageID #: 129
45. Defendant David Samsel is a member of the Ashland County Board of Elections. As such, he is responsible for discharging the duties of the Board, including determining voter eligibility. Defendant Samsel is sued in his official capacity.
Jennifer Brunner 46. Defendant Jennifer Brunner is the Secretary of State for the State of Ohio. She is the chief elections official of the State. As such, she and her agents are responsible for supervising the administration of election laws in Ohio, and compelling elections officers to comply with all state and federal election laws. Defendant Brunner is sued in her official capacity.
THE PERTINENT VOTER REGISTRATION PROVISIONS 47. To vote in a general election in Ohio, an individual must register thirty days before the election and reside in the county in which he seeks to vote. R.C. § 3503.01. In order to qualify to register, an individual need only be a citizen, eighteen years old, “and who, if he continues to reside in the precinct until the next election, will at that time have fulfilled all the requirements as to length of residence to qualify him as an elector.” R.C. § 3505.07. 48. Ohio has three statutory provisions to determine the county of residence. The default rules for determining residence are found in R.C. § 3503.02. There are two default rules relevant here. R.C. § 3503.02 (A) states: “That place shall be considered the residence of a person in which the person's habitation is fixed and to which, whenever the person is absent, the person has the intention of returning.” R.C. § 3503.02 (C) states: “A person shall not be considered to have gained a residence in any county of this state into which the person comes for temporary purposes only, without the intention of making such county the permanent place of abode.”
13

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 14 of 18. PageID #: 130
49. But Ohio has two exceptions to these default rules, one for “inmates” of soldiers’ homes and one for inmates of public or private institutions. R.C. § 3503.03; R.C. § 3503.04. These exceptions mandate that these inmates “shall have their lawful residence in the county, city, village and township in which said institution is located…,” provided the inmates are “qualified as to age and residence within the county….” R.C. § 3503.03; R.C. § 3503.04.
50. The age and residency qualifications are set forth in R. C. § 3503.07 which states that any person who is a citizen, eighteen years old, and resides in the precinct for thirty days is qualified to register.
51. Ohio law allows a qualified voter to challenge the right to vote of any registered voter and seek a cancellation of his right to vote, but the challenge “shall be filed with the board on a form prescribed by the secretary of state and shall be signed under penalty of election falsification.” R.C. § 3503.24. When a proper challenge is filed, a county board of elections is required to set a hearing and send notice to the challenged voter at least three days before the hearing. Id. A challenge may be filed to question whether the voter has registered in the correct county.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 52. Plaintiffs incorporate, herein, ¶¶ 10-51 above. 53. On or about October 15, 2008, Michael Barrett, an Ashland County registered voter, challenged Plaintiffs’ registrations alleging that Plaintiffs are only temporary residents of Ashland County. 54. Barrett did not file his challenge on the forms prescribed by the Secretary of State’s Office under penalty of election falsification.
14

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 15 of 18. PageID #: 131
55. County Defendants scheduled a hearing on Barrett’s challenge for October 24, 2008.
56. Plaintiffs did not receive the notice until October 23, 2008. 57. Because Plaintiffs are incarcerated, they would have had to first obtain a court order to be released to attend any hearing outside the facility. Plaintiffs did not have counsel at the time they received notice of the October 24, 2008 hearing and were unable to arrange for a court order to attend the hearing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were unable to attend the October 24th hearing. 58. County Defendants had the authority to issue subpoenas compelling Plaintiffs to attend the hearing. Defendants failed to do so. 59. At the hearing on October 24, 2008, County Defendants voted to uphold Barrett’s challenge, and have declared Plaintiffs ineligible to vote. 60. County Defendants have not provided absentee ballots to Plaintiffs. CLAIM FOR RELIEF – VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 61. Paragraphs 1-60 above are incorporated herein. 62. Plaintiffs were unable to attend the hearing due to inadequate notice. County Defendants held the hearing without giving them a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 63. County Defendants disenfranchised Plaintiffs without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard in violation of Plaintiffs’ Due Process Rights. CLAIM FOR RELIEF – VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 64. Paragraphs 1-63 are incorporated herein.
15

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 16 of 18. PageID #: 132
65. Defendant Brunner’s office instructed Ohio Justice & Policy Center (“OJPC”) staff that eligible youth incarcerated at Division of Youth Services (“DYS”) facilities, like Mohican, should register to vote in their county of confinement. Based on this information, OJPC staff and volunteers registered eligible youth at six DYS facilities in six separate counties.
66. Plaintiffs’ believe that they were the only DYS residents to have their voter registration canceled.
67. Defendant Brunner is responsible for ensuring that Ohio’s voting laws are fairly and uniformly administered throughout the State.
68. In short, Plaintiffs have been denied the right to vote where similarly situated DYS residents in other counties are being allowed to vote. As a result, Defendants have denied Plaintiffs equal protection of the law.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF – VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT 69. Paragraphs 1-68 above are incorporated herein. 70. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have violated rights secured to Plaintiffs by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution including the right to free expression, the right of association, and the right to vote. CLAIM FOR RELIEF – VIOLATION OF STATE REGISTRATION LAW 71. Paragraphs 1-70 above are incorporated herein. 72. Although Ohio law allows electors to challenge the right to vote of any registered elector, but, the challenge “shall be filed with the board on a form prescribed by the secretary of state and shall be signed under penalty of election falsification.” R.C. § 3503.24. Because Barrett’s challenge was unlawfully filed, County Defendants violated R.C. § 3503.24 by hearing the challenge and then upholding it.
16

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 17 of 18. PageID #: 133
73. Even if the hearing were proper, the Board failed to apply the correct residency
statute to the Plaintiffs. Instead of recognizing that R.C. § 3503.04 required Plaintiffs to register
in Ashland County, County Defendants purged Plaintiffs’ lawful registrations based on R.C. §
3503.02 in violation of Ohio law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
A. A temporary restraining order directing Defendants to immediately restore Plaintiffs’ names to the Ashland County registration list.
B. An injunction prohibiting Defendants from removing Plaintiffs from the voter registration list in Ashland County before Plaintiffs vote in the November 4, 2008 election.
C. An injunction requiring Defendants to deliver absentee ballots to Plaintiffs.
D. An order granting Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost incurred in prosecuting this action pursuant to statutory and common law; and
E. An order granting such other and further relief as this Court finds just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/DAVID A. SINGLETON David A. Singleton (Ohio #0074556) Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen JohnsonGrove (Ohio#0078999) Margie Slagle (Ohio #0082217) * Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 E. 9th Street, Suite 601 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Tel.: (513) 421-1108 ext.17 Fax: (513) 562-3200 Email: dsingleton@ohiojpc.org
sjohnsongrove@ohiojpc.org mslagle@ohiojpc.org
* Seeking admission pro hac vice
17

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/29/08 18 of 18. PageID #: 134 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing First Amended Complaint was filed electronically on October 29, 2008. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/DAVID A. SINGLETON David A. Singleton
18

 
 Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 26 Filed: 11/04/08 1 of 2. PageID #: 314

No. 08-4439
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FILED
NOV 0 3 2008 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

Derek Hamilton, et al., Plaintiff-Appellants,
v. Ashland County Board of Elections, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT

PUBLICATION

$ixlh Orcuit Rule 28(g) limits citation to speciRc siluatlons.

lfeosesee Rule 28(g) before citing in a proceedingiAOIIIUII
ltttlleS"IlllhCircuit, If cilecl, a copy must"' S!IMiCJ onofalr

I'Orfies and the Court.

. .•

1tlls notice is to be prominen~y displayed if this cfectst011

is reproduced.

·

.

.; J c.
BEFORE: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges; STEEB, District Judge.* ' - -••,,· '•, .1
Before the court is plaintiffs-appellants' emergencymotion for deliv#rycifpt~:rvisional ballots
and to expedite the appeal so that a determination ofthe merits can be made ~1~lri,ri,ten days, a period
provided under Ohio law within which a voter may take further steps to have his provisional ballot counted. Defendants-appellees have responded to the motion.
The court has carefully considered the district court record and the filings of the parties in this court and denies the requested relief. While a review of Ohio statutes rehtting to provisional ballots reveals that they are permitted in a variety ofcircumstances, none ofthe statu.tes (:;Ontemplates
ll j·· •.. , ~-- 1~' '--, ., '
their use in a situation where election officials deliver them to persons •Who have been denied absentee ballots. Consequently, plaintiffs have failed to establish a likelihood ofsuccess on the issue of their entitlement to the relief sought.

*The Honorable George Caram Steeh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District ofMichigan, sitting by designation.

Case: 1:08-cv-02546-DCN Doc #: 26 Filed: 11/04/08 2 of 2. PageID #: 315
With respect to the request to expedite the appeal, the court concludes that the federal constitutional issues can be resolved on the basis ofthe record and briefing in the district court. The district court's rulings with respect to thedue process, equal protection, and First Amendment claims are affirmed for the reasons stated in its Memorandum Opinion and Order of October 31, 2008.
The remaining issue is the state law issue involving the proper interpretation of O.R.C. § 3503.04. While plaintiffs may have a viable argument with respect to this issue, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim and for this reas~m make no finding as to the likelihood of success on this issue. Ordinarily, the resolution of a state law· claim by the district court might argue for the retention ofjurisdiction by the appellate court. Here, however, timing strongly suggests that a more efficient resolution of the litigation may be achieved by allowing plaintiffs to pursue their state law claim in state court. Our denial ofthe relief of delivery of provisional ballots means that, even if we were to resolve the state claim in plaintiffs' favor eventually, plaintiffs would have no opportunity to vote in this election. Our dismissal of the state claim without prejudice will allow plaintiffs to pursue this claim in state court tomorrow, at a time when a state court could in fact, ifit chose, grant plaintiffs the reliefthey seek or perhaps other relief, if its conclusions about delivery ofprovisional ballots differ from ours. And dismissal will permit the state courts to interpret the state election statutes with respect to residency, a task more appropriately undertaken by the state courts than by federal courts.
The district court's dismissal of the state claim on the merits is vacated, and the state claim is dismissed without prejudice. The district court's judgment on the federal'clairns is affirmed.
OF THE COURT.

 
 Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 1 of 10
Cat03,Termed,White
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08−cv−02546−DCN

Hamilton et al v. Ashland County Board of Elections et al Assigned to: Judge Donald C. Nugent Case in other court: 6th Circuit, 08−04439 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/27/2008 Date Terminated: 10/31/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Derek Hamilton

represented by Angelina N. Jackson Ohio Justice &Policy Center Ste. 601 215 East Ninth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−421−1108 Fax: 513−562−3200 Email: ajackson@ohiojpc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton Ohio Justice &Policy Center Ste. 601 215 East Ninth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−421−1108 Fax: 513−562−3200 Email: dsingleton@ohiojpc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle Ohio Justice &Policy Center Ste. 601 215 East Ninth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−421−1108

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove Ohio Justice &Policy Center Ste. 601 215 East Ninth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−421−1108 Fax: 513−562−3200 Email: sjohnsongrove@ohiojpc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Xavier Brock

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address)

Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 2 of 10

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Lee Sweazy

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chevin Joseph Rout

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Javon D Patton

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeremiah M Ramos

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 3 of 10

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jabrail A Wofford

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rameon J Sumlin

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Mack

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Markus H Barrett

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle

Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 4 of 10

(See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Raymond L Welcher

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nicholas M Seefong

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Taronn L Allen

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)

Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Troy Tomlin

represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 5 of 10

Plaintiff Nick S Mallison
Plaintiff Roget Carr

Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)
Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)
Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angelina N. Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Singleton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marguerite J. Slagle (See above for address)
Stephen A. JohnsonGrove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections

represented by Jeffrey A. Stankunas Isaac, Brant, Ledman &Teetor Ste. 900 250 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215−3742 614−221−2121 Fax: 614−365−9516 Email: Jeffreystankunas@isaacbrant.com
Mark D. Landes Isaac, Brant, Ledman &Teetor 900 Midland Bldg. 250 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 614−221−2121 Fax: 614−365−9516 Email: ml@isaacbrant.com
Michael D. Donatini

Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 6 of 10

Office of the Prosecuting Attorney − Ashland County 307 Orange Street Ashland, OH 44805 419−289−8857 Fax: 419−281−3865 Email: ashlandcounty@hotmail.com

Paul T. Lange 307 Orange Street Ashland, OH 44805 419−289−8857 Fax: 419−281−3865

Tiffany L. Carwile Office of the Prosecuting Attorney − Ashland County 307 Orange Street Ashland, OH 44805 419−289−8875 Fax: 419−281−3865 Email: ashlandcounty@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dennis Ragle

represented by Jeffrey A. Stankunas (See above for address)

Mark D. Landes (See above for address)

Tiffany L. Carwile (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Bonnie Manos

represented by Jeffrey A. Stankunas (See above for address)

Mark D. Landes (See above for address)

Tiffany L. Carwile (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant George Bringman

represented by Jeffrey A. Stankunas (See above for address)

Mark D. Landes (See above for address)

Tiffany L. Carwile (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant David Samsel

represented by Jeffrey A. Stankunas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 7 of 10

Mark D. Landes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tiffany L. Carwile (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jennifer Brunner

represented by Pearl M. Chin Office of the Attorney General − Constitutional Offices State of Ohio 16th Floor 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 614−466−2872 Fax: 614−728−7592 Email: pearl.chin@ohioattorneygeneral.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard N. Coglianese Office of the Attorney General − Constitutional Offices State of Ohio 16th Floor 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 614−466−2872 Fax: 614−728−7592 Email: richard.coglianese@ohioattorneygeneral.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/27/2008
10/28/2008 10/28/2008 10/28/2008

# Docket Text
1 Complaint against all defendants. Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 06470000000003267449, filed by Markus H Barrett, Raymond L Welcher, Nicholas M Seefong, Taronn L Allen, Troy Tomlin, Nick S Mallison, Roget Carr, Derek Hamilton, Xavier Brock, David Lee Sweazy, Chevin Joseph Rout, Javon D Patton, Jeremiah M Ramos, Jabrail A Wofford, Rameon J Sumlin, James Mack. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Ashland County Board of Elections, # 3 Summons Bonnie Manos, # 4 Summons David Samsel, # 5 Summons Dennis Ragle, # 6 Summons George Bringman, # 7 Summons Jennifer Brunner) (Singleton, David) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
Judge Donald C. Nugent assigned to case. (C,BA) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge White. (C,BA) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
2 Motion for temporary restraining order filed by Markus H Barrett, Raymond L Welcher, Nicholas M Seefong, Taronn L Allen, Troy Tomlin, Nick S Mallison, Roget Carr, Derek Hamilton, Xavier Brock, David Lee Sweazy, Chevin Joseph Rout, Javon D Patton, Jeremiah M Ramos, Jabrail A Wofford, Rameon J Sumlin, James Mack. Related document(s) 1 . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Derek Hamilton, # 2 Affidavit Xavier Brock Declaration, # 3 Affidavit David Lee Sweazy Declaration, # 4 Affidavit Chevin Rouhgt Declaration, # 5 Affidavit Javon Patton Declaration, # 6 Affidavit Jeremiah Ramos Declaration, # 7 Affidavit Jabrail Wofford Declaration, # 8 Affidavit Rameon Sumlin Declaration, # 9 Affidavit James Mack Declaration, # 10 Affidavit Markus Barrett Declaration, # 11 Affidavit Raymond Welcher Declaration, # 12 Affidavit Nicholas Seefong Declaration, # 13 Affidavit Taronn Allen Declaration, # 14 Affidavit Troy Tomlin Declaration, # 15 Affidavit Nick Mallison Declaration, # 16 Affidavit Roget Carr

Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 8 of 10

10/28/2008 10/28/2008 10/29/2008 10/29/2008 10/29/2008 10/29/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008
10/30/2008 10/30/2008
10/30/2008

Declaration, # 17 Affidavit Margie Slagle Declaration)(Singleton, David) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
3 Summons and Magistrate Consent Form issued to counsel for service upon Ashland County Board of Elections, Dennis Ragle, Bonnie Manos, George Bringman, David Samsel &Jennifer Brunner. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Consent Form) (C,BA) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
4 Attorney Appearance for Defendant Ohio Secretrary of State Jennifer Brunner by Richard N. Coglianese filed by on behalf of Jennifer Brunner. (Coglianese, Richard) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
Notice (non−document)of Temporary Restraining Order Hearing scheduled to be held on 10/31/2008 at 08:00 AM at Courtroom 15A before Judge Donald C. Nugent. (R,JM) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
5 Attorney Appearance by Tiffany L. Carwile filed by on behalf of Ashland County Board of Elections, Dennis Ragle, Bonnie Manos, George Bringman, David Samsel. (Carwile, Tiffany) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
6 Motion for Order to Convey filed by Ashland County Board of Elections, Dennis Ragle, Bonnie Manos, George Bringman, David Samsel. (Carwile, Tiffany) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
7 First Amended complaint against all defendants, filed by Derek Hamilton. (Singleton, David) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
Financial Transaction in the amount of $200.00 received for motion to appear pro hac vice by attorneys Paul T. Lange and Michael D. Donatini, Receipt # 14660024251. (B,IE) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
8 Response to 2 Motion for temporary restraining order filed by Ashland County Board of Elections, Dennis Ragle, Bonnie Manos, George Bringman, David Samsel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Carwile, Tiffany) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
9 Motion for attorney Michael D. Donatini to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 14660024251, filed by Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Michael D. Donatini, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing)(B,B) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
10 Motion for attorney Paul T. Lange to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 14660024251, filed by Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Paul Lange, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing)(B,B) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
11 Motion for attorney Angelina Jackson to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 06470000000003273057, filed by Markus H Barrett, Raymond L Welcher, Nicholas M Seefong, Taronn L Allen, Troy Tomlin, Nick S Mallison, Roget Carr, Derek Hamilton, Xavier Brock, David Lee Sweazy, Chevin Joseph Rout, Javon D Patton, Jeremiah M Ramos, Jabrail A Wofford, Rameon J Sumlin, James Mack. (Singleton, David) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
12 Response to 2 Motion for temporary restraining order filed by Jennifer Brunner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Chin, Pearl) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
13 Attorney Appearance by David A. Singleton filed by on behalf of Markus H Barrett, Raymond L Welcher, Nicholas M Seefong, Taronn L Allen, Troy Tomlin, Nick S Mallison, Roget Carr, Derek Hamilton, Xavier Brock, David Lee Sweazy, Chevin Joseph Rout, Javon D Patton, Jeremiah M Ramos, Jabrail A Wofford, Rameon J Sumlin, James Mack. (Singleton, David) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
14 Reply to response to 2 Motion for temporary restraining order filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Angelina Jackson re: voicemail from Secretary of State's office, # 2 Affidavit of Karen Wood re: date of service of notice, # 3 Exhibit Plain Dealer article, # 4 Affidavit of Eli Braun re: Ohio River Valley facility, # 5 Affidavit of Angelina Jackson re: Circleville facility, # 6 Exhibit Ashland Times−Gazette article)(JohnsonGrove, Stephen) (Entered: 10/30/2008)

Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 9 of 10

10/31/2008 10/31/2008 11/02/2008
11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008
11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008
11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/04/2008

15 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order(Related Doc # 2 ) and Dismissing the First Amended Complaint 7 , with prejudice.. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 10/31/08.(C,B) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
16 Judgment Entry re 15 Memorandum opinion and Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; Denying the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 2 , and Dismissing the First Amended Complaint 7 with prejudice. Signed Judge Donald C. Nugent on 10/31/08. (C,B) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
17 Motion to stay and for an order to require Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections to provide provisional ballots to Plaintiffs pending appeal, filed by Markus H Barrett, Raymond L Welcher, Nicholas M Seefong, Taronn L Allen, Troy Tomlin, Nick S Mallison, Roget Carr, Derek Hamilton, Xavier Brock, David Lee Sweazy, Chevin Joseph Rout, Javon D Patton, Jeremiah M Ramos, Jabrail A Wofford, Rameon J Sumlin, James Mack (Related document(s) 16 , 15 ). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Staying Dismissal and Ordering Provisional Ballots to be Provided to Plaintiffs Pending Appeal) (Singleton, David). Modified text on 11/3/2008 (H, SP). (Entered: 11/02/2008)
18 Attorney Appearance by Mark D. Landes and Jeffrey A. Stankunas filed by on behalf of Ashland County Board of Elections, Dennis Ragle, Bonnie Manos, George Bringman, David Samsel. (Landes, Mark) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
19 Opposition to 17 Motion to stay and for an order to require Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections to provide provisional ballots to Plaintiffs pending appeal filed by Ashland County Board of Elections, Dennis Ragle, Bonnie Manos, George Bringman, David Samsel. (Stankunas, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
20 Transcript of TRO held on 10−31−08 before Judge Donald C. Nugent. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Shirle Perkins at 216−357−7106. [62 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 11/12/2008. Redaction Request due 11/24/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/4/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/2/2009. (P,Sh) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
21 Reply to response to 17 Motion to stay and for an order to require Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections to provide provisional ballots to Plaintiffs pending appeal filed by all plaintiffs. (JohnsonGrove, Stephen) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
22 Order re 17 Denying Motion to stay and for an order to require Defendant Ashland County Board of Elections to provide provisional ballots to Plaintiffs. Judge Donald C. Nugent.(R,JM) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
23 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals from the 15 Memorandum Opinion and Order and 16 Judgment of 10/31/08, filed by plaintiffs Markus H Barrett, Raymond L Welcher, Nicholas M Seefong, Taronn L Allen, Troy Tomlin, Nick S Mallison, Roget Carr, Derek Hamilton, Xavier Brock, David Lee Sweazy, Chevin Joseph Rout, Javon D Patton, Jeremiah M Ramos, Jabrail A Wofford, Rameon J Sumlin and James Mack. (Filing fee of $455 paid, receipt number 06470000000003276239) (JohnsonGrove, Stephen). Modified text on 11/3/2008 (H, SP). (Entered: 11/03/2008)
24 Order (corrected caption) that Plaintiff's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is denied and the First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 10/31/2008. (Related doc 2 , 7 , 15 , 16 )(B,B) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
25 Acknowledgment from the USCA for Sixth Circuit of receipt of 23 Notice of Appeal (USCA# 08−4439). Date filed in USCA 11/3/08. (H, SP) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
26 Information Copy of order from USCA for the Sixth Circuit: The District Court's dismissal of the state claim on the merits is vacated, and the state claim is dismissed without prejudice. The District Court's judgment on the federal claims is

Case: 1:08-cv-2546 As of: 09/19/2012 06:46 PM EDT 10 of 10

11/25/2008

affirmed re 23 Notice of Appeal (USCA# 08−4439). This is not a mandate order. Circuit Judges: Gibbons and Cook, District Judge: Steeh. Date issued by USCA 11/3/08 (H, SP) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
27 True copy of mandate from the USCA for the Sixth Circuit: The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part and vacated in part as to 23 Notice of Appeal (USCA# 08−4439). Date issued as mandate 11/25/08, No Costs Taxed (Related document 26 ) (H, SP) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

 
 llJ200014

CDlEMfNI Justice Solutions

08-CIV-495 HAMILTON, DEREK, ET AL VS. ASHLAND COUNTY BOARD OF

ELECTIONS , ET AL

Case Type: CIVIL Status Date: 11/04/2008 Case Judge: FORSTHOEFB., RONALD Po Next Event:

Case Status: CLOSED Ale Date: 11/04/2008 DCM Track:

I All Information Party Docket Disposition

I Party Information
HAMILTON, DERK- R.AMlFF Dis position Disp Date
I
Alias

Address MOHICAN JlNENLE CORR

FACILITY

1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

\..

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..INA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, llo\VID ALLAN (0074556) SLAGLE, MARGUERITE JEAN (0082217) VVALL,R()BERTJOSEPH(0082356)

Phone Number
(513)556-0900 (513)421-1108 (513)421-1108 -
(513)421-1108

~rg B!mt: nf'Qr!!!!.t!Qn

BROCK, XAVIER - R.AINTIFF Dis position Disp Date
I
Alias
I

Address MOHICAN JlNB\ILE CORR

FACILITY

1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

....

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..INA NICOLE (0077937)

Phone Number (513)556-0900

SINGLETON, llo\VIDALLAN (0074556)

(513)421-1108

1\t>re Pamt: ntorrmtion

SWEAZY, DAVID LEE - R.AINTlFF Dis position Dlsp Date
I
Alias

Address
'---

MOHICAN JlNB\ILE CORR FACILITY 1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

l
--

Attorney/Bar Code

JAO<SON, ANGB..INA NICOLE (0077937)

SINGLETON, llo\VIDALLAN (0074556)

Phone Number (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108

1\t>re Pamt: nforrmtion

ROUT, CI-EVIN JOSEPH - R.AINTIFF

Dis posltlon Dlsp Date
I

Address MOHICAN JlNENLE CORR

FACILITY

1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

\..

Alias

Attorney/Bar Code

Phone Number

JAO<SON, ANGB..INA NICOLE (0077937)
-···-· --·· -·· ··- ......... ~---·---·

( 513)556-0900
·-·-· ·- .. ·--

http:llw.YNoashlandCOU"1l)cpcourtorg/esllr\4~AJZVb2'M)4•-Ru CIOU KZqGLRn1elojhNAN6Qm- h7"v.o4KirbnLwTtJ-WSCOg J B"MXM DH4zx1 FLGQbSXYiq 0 0 0 1/6

llJ200014
PATTON, JAVON D- PLAINTlFF Dis position Disp Date
Alias
RAM OS, JEH:M IAH M - PLAINTFF Dis position Disp Date
Alias
WOFFORD, JABRAIL A - PLAINTlFF Dis position Disp Date
Alias
SlJIIILIN, RAMEDN J - PLAINTIFF Dis position Disp Date
Alias
MACK, JAMES - PLAINTIFF Dis posltlon Dlsp Date
Alias

CDlEMfNI Justice Solutions l SINGLETON, ~VIDALLAN (0074556)

(513)421-1108

Address

MOHICAN JlNENLE CORR FACILITY 1012 (X)NR MOH~N 51
PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

J

M>re Party ntormation

Attorney/Bar Coda JAO<SON, ANGB..NA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, DAVID ALLAN (0074556)

Phone Num bar (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108
1\rbre Party nformation

Address MOHICAN JlNENLE CORR

FACILITY

1012 CXlNR MOH~N 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

Attorney/Bar Coda JAO<SON, ANGB..NA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, DAVID ALLAN (0074556)

Phone Num bar (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108
1\rbre Party ntorma.tion

Address

MOHICAN JlNENLE CORR FACILITY 1012 (X)NR MOH~N 51

l

PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..NA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, DAVID ALLAN (0074556)

Phone Num bar (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108
1\rbre Party ntormation

Address MOHICAN JlNENLE CORR

FACILITY

1012 CXlNR MOH~N 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..NA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, DAVID ALLAN (0074556)

Phone Num bar (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108
M>re Party ntormation

Address MOHICAN JlNENLE CORR

FACILITY

1012 CXlNR MOH~N 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..NA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, DAVID ALLAN (0074556)

Phone Number (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108

http:llw.YN.ashlandCOU'1l)cpcourtorg/esllr\4~AJZVb2'M)4•-Ru CIOU KZqGLRn1elojhNAN6Qm- h7'v.o4KirbnLwTtJ-WSCOg J s•MXM DH4zx1 FLGQbSXYiq... 216

llJ200014 BARRETT, MARKUS H - RAINTIFF Dis pos ltlon Disp Date
Alias
WB.CI-a, RAYMOND L - RAINTIFF Dis position Disp Date
Alias
SEEFONG, NCHOLAS M - RAINTIFF Dis position Disp Date
Alias
ALLBII, TAROr.l L - RAINTIFF Dis position Disp Date
Alias
TOMLIN, TROY - RAMlFF Dis position Disp Date
Alias

CDlEMfNI Justice Solutions

1\bre Party ntorrration

Address MOHICAN JlNB\ILE CORR

FACILITY

1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

-

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..INA NICOLE (0077937)

Phone Number (513)556-0900

SINGLETON, lli\VIDALLAN (0074556)

(513)421-1108

1\bre Party nforrration

Address MOHICAN JlNB\ILE CORR

FACILITY

1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..INA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, lli\VIDALLAN (0074556)

Phone Num bar (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108

Address

MOHICAN JlNB\ILE CORR FACILITY 1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51
PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

J

1\rbre Party ntorrration

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..INA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, lli\VIDALLAN (0074556)

Phone Num bar (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108
1\rbre Party nforrration

Address MOHICAN JlNB\ILE CORR

FACILITY

1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

Attorney/Bar Coda JAO<SON, ANGB..INA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, lli\VIDALLAN (0074556)

Phone Num bar (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108
1\rbra Party ntorrmtion

Address

MOHICAN JlNB\ILE CORR FACILITY 1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51

l

PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

'--

Attorney/Bar Coda JAO<SON, ANGB..INA NICOLE (0077937)

SINGLETON, lli\VIDALLAN (0074556)

Phone Num bar (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108
1\bre Party ntorrration

http:llw.YN.ashlandCOU'1l)cpcourtorg/esllr\4~AJZVb2'M)4•-Ru CIOU KZqGLRn1elojhNAN6Qm- h7'v.o4KirbnLwTtJ-WSCOg J s•MXM DH4zx1 FLGQbSXYiq... 3f6

llJ200014 MALLISON, NCKS - PLAINTIFF
Dis posltlon Disp Date

CDlEMfNI Justice Solutions

Address

MOHICAN JlN~LE CORR
FACILITY 1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

J

Alias

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..NA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, DAVID ALLAN (0074556)

Phone Number (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108
Mlre Party ntorrration

CARR, ROGEr - PLAINTIFF
Dis position Disp Date

Address MOHICAN JlN~LE CORR

FACILITY

1012 ODNR MOHICAN 51 PERRYSVILLE, OH 44864

1

Alias

Attorney/Bar Code JAO<SON, ANGB..NA NICOLE (0077937) SINGLETON, DAVID ALLAN (0074556)

Phone Number (513)556-0900 (513)421-1108
Mlre Party nforrration

ASHLAND COUNTY BOARD OF B..B:TIONS - DEF~NT

Dis position Disp Date

Address 110 COTTAGEST ASHLAND, OH 44805

Alias

Attorney/Bar Code
lUNNB..L, a-IRISTOPHER R

Phone Number

RAGLE, DSINS - DEFB'IIDANT
Dis posltlon Disp Date

l
Address ASHLAND CO BOARD OF
B..ECTJONS

Mlre Party ntorrration

110 COTTAGEST

'-

ASHLAND, OH 44805 _

Alias -------------------------- Attorney/Bar Code

Phone Number

lUNNB..L, a-IRISTOPHER R

lMANOS, BOONE- IJIH>Ili\NT
Dis posltlon
Dlsp Date

Address

l
ASHLAND CO BOARD OF
B..ECTJONS

Mlre Party ntorrration

110 COTTAGEST

'--

ASHLAND, OH 44805

Alias ---------------------------- Attorney/Bar Code

Phone Number

lUNNB.L, Q-IRISTOPHER R

Mlre Party ntorrration

BRINGMAN, GEDRGE - DEFB'IIDANT Dis posltlon Dlsp Date
Alias

Address '-

ASHLAND CO BOARD OF
B..ECTJONS 110 COTTAGEST ASHLAND, OH 44805

1
Phone Number

http:llw.YN.ashlandCOU'1l)cpcourtorg/esllr\4~AJZVb2'M)4•-Ru CIOU KZqGLRn1elojhNAN6Qm- h7'v.o4KirbnLwTtJ-WSCOg J s•MXM DH4zx1 FLGQbSXYiq... 416

llJ200014
SAMSB.., DAVID - De::e!DANT Dis posltlon Disp Date
Alias

CDlEMfNI Justice Solutions
l lUNNt::LL, U1t«; I UI"'Mt:K K
l
Address ASI-I..AND CO BOARD OF B..ECTIONS 110 COTTAGEST ASI-I..AND, OH 44805

1\bre Partv ntorrration

Attorney/Bar Code TUNNB..L, QiRISTOPHffi R

Phone Number
1\bre Partv ntorrration

IDocket Information

Date 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008
11/04/2008
11/04/2008
11/05/2008 11/0512008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008
11/06/2008

Docket Text
CASE DESIGNATION SHEET FILED.
COI\!R..AINT, VERIFICATION FILBJBY AnY. SINGLETON.
MOTlON FOR T8\rFORARY RESTRAINING ORDffi, Me.40RANDLIJI OF LAW N SUPPORT, CERTlFICATE OF SERVICE, EXHBITS A-C FLBJ BY ATTY. SNGLETON.
MOllON TO DISMISS AND RESFONSE TO FLAINTlFFS' MOllON FOR TBvPORARY RESlRAINING ORDER, ORAL HEARING REQUESTED, CEmFICATE OF SERVICE FILED PROSECUTOR
JlJJGMENT ENTRY GRANTING REQUEST FOR T8\rFORARY RESlRAINING ORI:Jffi FILED AS OUTlNBJ. HEARING ON THE MERITS OF TI-lE CASE SHALL BECOrvJCTEDON 11/10/08 AT 1:15 PMAS OVTliNBJ. Q.ffii<'S PROOF OF SERVICE BY ORDt.IARY 1\N\IL TO: ATTY. SINGLETON. Q.ffii<'S PROOF OF SERVICE BY FLACNG IN MAILBOX N Q.ERK'S OFFICE TO: PROSECUTOR STARTING JM# 31 8'll:lN3 JM# 32
PRECIF6 FOR SLEPOB'IAS FLBJ PROSECUTOR
SUBPOB'IAS ISSUBJ ASHLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR FOR SERVICE
PRECIF6 FOR SLEPOB'IAS FLBJ PROSECUTOR
SUBPOB\IAS ISSUED ASHLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR FOR SERVICE
SUBPOB\IAS (23) RETURNED AND FILBJ ASHLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR
SUBPEONAS (2) FAILBJ TO BE SERVED RETURNED AND FLED BY ASHLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR
TI-lE DIRECTOR OF TI-lE OHIO os:rr. OF YOUTI-i SERVICES lRANSFER
OR CAUSE TO BE lRANSFffiRBJ TO TI-lE ASHLAND COUNTY COMv'ON R..EAS COURT THE NDIVIJL.Ll>.LS LISTED AS OUTLINBJ. Q.ffii<'S PROOF OF SERVICE BY ORDI'JA.RY MAIL TO: ATTY. SINGLETON, OHIO DSJT. OF YOUTI-i SERVICES. Q.ERK'S PROOF OF SERVICE BY FLAONG IN MAILBOX IN Q.ERK'S OFFICE TO: PROSECUTOR STARTING JM# 8 8'11DING JM# 8
TI-lE DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO os:rr. OF YOUTI-i SERVICES SHALL
lRANSFffi OR CAUSETO BE lRANSFERRBJ THE NDIVIDUALS LISTED AS OUTliNED. Q.ffii<'S PROOF OF SERVICE BY ORDINARY MA.L TO:
ATTY. SNGLETON, OHIO os:rr. OF YOUTH SERVICES. Q.ffii<'S
PROOF OF SERVICE BY R..AONG IN fv\c\ILBOX N Q.ffii<'S OFFICE TO: PROSECUTOR STARTING JM# 9 8'11DING JM# 10

Amount $0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

http:llw.YN.ashlandCOU'1l)cpcourtorg/esllr\4~AJZVb2'M)4•-Ru CIOU KZqGLRn1elojhNAN6Qm- h7'v.o4KirbnLwTtJ-WSCOg J s•MXM DH4zx1 FLGQbSXYiq... 5f6

llJ200014
11/UD/~UUO
11/06/2008
11/07/2008 11/07/2008 11/07/2008 11/07/2008 11/07/2008 11/07/2008 11/07/2008
11/07/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/1312008
11/21/2008 11/25/2008 01/07/2009 01/0812009

CDlEMfNI Justice Solutions
VVI\~1'11;:) I"'UN;~VI\L l~IJ ..,_,UI:lJ IM~UMIU UC"'I. Ul"' TUUIM
S~ICES BY ORDIN!\RY ~IL.
lHE U..ffiK IS ORDERED TO SERVE VIA REGll.AR MAIL A COPf OF lHEATTACHBJORDERSTOOHIODEPT. OFYOLJTHS~ICESAND MOHICAN JlNENILE CORRECTION!\L FAOUTY. U..ffiK'S PROOF OF S~ICE BY ORDNARY MAL TO: OHIO DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVICES, MOHICAN JlNENILE CORRECTIONAL FAOUTY. U..ffiK'S PROOF OF S~ICE BY R.ACI-JG IN 1\N.ILBOX N U..ERK'S OFFICE TO: PROSECUTOR STARTlNG JM# 39 8'IJI'IIG JM# 42
~PE FOR SUBPOENA FLED ATTORNEY WALL.
SUBPOEN-\ ISSUED ATTORNEY ROBERT WALL FOR S~ICE.
SllPULAllON WITH EXHIBITS FILBJ PROSEOJTOR
SUPR..everrAL BRIB= OF DEFENDA.NTS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILBJ PROSECUTOR
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ATTY. SLAGLE FOR DEREK HAMILTON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY ATTY. SLAGLE
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ATTY. WALL ON BeiALF OF DEREK HAIVW...TON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY ATTY. WALL.
R.AINllFF TROY TOM.JN, GIVES NOTICE OF DISMSSAL OF HIS G..AIMS AGAINST lHE DEFENDANTS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE U..ffiK'S PROOF OF SERVICE BY ORDI'JARY MAIL TO: ATTY. SINGLETON. U..ERK'S PROOF OF SERVICE BY R.AONG N MAILBOX N U..ERK'S OFFICE TO: PROSEOJTOR STARTlNG JM# 61 ENDING JM# 62
SUBPOEN-\S RETURNED AND FILED.
MOllON IN LtJIII'E, M3\rDRAI'O..JJI N SUPPORr OF MOllON IN Llrvi\IE, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, EXHIBIT A FILED BY ATTY. JACKSON.
R.AINllFFS' Rat.Y IN SUPPORr OF MOllON FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIB=, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY ATTY. JAO<SON.
EV[)ENllARY HEARING HB..D 11/10/08 AS OUTLINED. IT IS ORDERED THAT R.AINllFF'S corvFLAINT IS DISMSSED AT R.AINllFF'S COST AS OUTLINED. U..ffiK'S PROOF OF SERVICE BY ORDINARY Ml\L TO ATTORI'£Y SINGLETON AND BY R.ACI-JG IN U..ffiK'S MAILBOX FOR PROSEOJTOR STARTlNG JM# 124 ENDING JM# 128
COST BILL FILBl
- COfvR..ETE ~SE FILt.IED AND PUT IN JACKET-
AIR HISTORY FILED. (OHIO JUSTICE & POLICY CTR)
** FILM aJT AND IN JACKET-

ICaso Disposition

Disposition

Date
-----

BENCI-I TRIAL (A)

11/1312008

Case Judge FORSTHOB=B.., RON!\LD P.

OIIU.UU
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00

http:llw.YN.ashlandCOU'1l)cpcourtorg/esllr\4~AJZVb2'M)4•-Ru CIOU KZqGLRn1elojhNAN6Qm- h7'v.o4KirbnLwTtJ-WSCOg J s•MXM DH4zx1 FLGQbSXYiq... 616