IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Cameron Padgett, :

:

Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:18-cv-13

:

vs. : Judge Susan J. Dlott

:

Neville G. Pinto, :

:

Defendant. :

DEFENDANT NEVILLE G. PINTO’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLAIMS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(C), Defendant, Neville G. Pinto, in his official capacity,

moves for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages. The Eleventh Amendment 

bars Plaintiff’s monetary damages claims against President Pinto in his official. A Memorandum 

in Support is attached hereto.

/s/ Mark Landes

Mark Landes (0027227)

mlandes@isaacwiles.com

Mark Weaver (0065769)

mweaver@isaacwiles.com

Andrew N. Yosowitz (0075306)

ayosowitz@isaacwiles.com

Shawn K. Judge (0069493)

sjudge@isaacwiles.com

Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor, LLC

2 Miranova Place, Suite 700

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Tel: 614-221-2121; Fax: 614-365-9516

Attorneys for Defendant Neville G. Pinto
2

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

I. RELEVANT FACTS

The facts relevant to this Motion are as follows:

• Plaintiff has sued Neville Pinto, the President of the University of Cincinnati, in his 

official capacity. (Complaint, Doc. 1, Case Caption, ¶ 3, Page ID # 1, 2.)

• The University of Cincinnati is a public university created by the State of Ohio. (Id. at ¶ 

15, Page ID # 4.)

• Plaintiff alleges that the University of Cincinnati is liable for violating 42 U.S.C. Section 

1983. (Complaint, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 46-52, Page ID # 12-13.)

• Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, for all of his claims, 

including his official capacity claims. (Id. at Page ID #13.)

II. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiff’s Official Capacity Claim Against President Pinto Is A Claim 

Against The University Of Cincinnati

An official-capacity claim is “another way of pleading an action against an entity of 

which an officer is an agent.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55, 98 S. Ct. 

2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). Plaintiff’s official capacity claim is therefore functionally a claim 

against the University of Cincinnati.

B. Plaintiff’s Claims For Monetary Damages Against The University Of 

Cincinnati Are Barred By The Eleventh Amendment

Plaintiff alleges that the University of Cincinnati is liable for violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Complaint, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 46-52, Page ID # 12-13.) Section 1983 provides that “[e]very person who 

. . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of 

any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the 

party injured.” (Emphasis added). State entities are not considered “person[s]” that can be liable 

under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105 L. Ed. 2d 
3

45 (1989). Similarly, § 1983 claims do not lie against instrumentalities of a state, including state 

universities. Russell v. Univ. of Toledo, 537 F.3d 596, 610 (6th Cir. 2008). The University of 

Cincinnati is an instrumentality of the State of Ohio and cannot be subjected to liability 

under §1983. (Complaint, ¶ 15, Page ID 4; Ohio Rev. Code § 3361.01.)

Moreover, even if the University of Cincinnati were a “person,” the Eleventh 

Amendment bars Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 

89, 117, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1984) (holding that “[i]t is clear, of course, that in the 

absence of consent to suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as 

the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment”).The Sixth Circuit has stated, 

unequivocally, that the Eleventh Amendment bars all suits against the state and its departments. 

Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treas., 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993). As a state university, the 

University of Cincinnati is considered an arm of the State of Ohio and therefore is exempt from § 

1983 liability. Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 571 (2000). The Sixth Circuit has 

specifically held that the Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to Ohio’s state universities. 

Hall v. Med. Coll. of Ohio at Toledo, 742 F.2d 299, 301 (6th Cir. 1984) (public colleges and 

universities are arms of their respective state governments and immune from lawsuits); see also

Ohio Rev. Code § 3345.011 (defining “state university” as a “body politic and corporate” and 

specifically including the University of Cincinnati).

An exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity permits suit against state officials for 

purely injunctive relief, but the exception does not include relief involving the payment of public 

funds from state revenues. Yates-Mattingly v. Univ. of Cincinnati, Case No. 1:11-cv-753, 2012 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124101 at *7-8 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2012) (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 

123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S. Ct. 1347, 39 L. 
4

Ed. 2d 662 (1974)). Because the Eleventh Amendment is an “explicit limitation on federal

judicial power,” Edelman, 415 U.S. at 678 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Dep’t of Treas. of 

Indiana, 323 U.S. 459, 467, 89 L. Ed. 389, 65 S. Ct. 347 (1945)), a federal court is without 

jurisdiction to hear a claim against an unconsenting state absent congressional abrogation. See 

Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 2273, 2277, 105 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989); 

Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 242. Plaintiff’s claims against the University of Cincinnati for monetary 

damages must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782, 57 

L. Ed. 2d 1114, 98 S. Ct. 3057 (1978) (per curiam) (ordering dismissal of state defendant sued 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because “the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts 

from entertaining suits by private parties against States and their agencies”). 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss the monetary claims against the 

official-capacity Defendant. Coupled with the necessary dismissal of the individual-capacity 

Defendant as requested in the companion Rule 12(c) motion, the only claim remaining for 

disposition should be injunctive relief against the official-capacity Defendant. To dispose of that 

claim, the official-capacity Defendant will provide the Court additional information concerning 

the content-neutral rental cost for Plaintiff’s proposed event.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark Landes

Mark Landes (0027227)

mlandes@isaacwiles.com

Mark Weaver (0065769)

mweaver@isaacwiles.com

Andrew N. Yosowitz (0075306)

ayosowitz@isaacwiles.com

Shawn K. Judge (0069493)

sjudge@isaacwiles.com

Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor, LLC
5

2 Miranova Place, Suite 700

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Tel: 614-221-2121; Fax: 614-365-9516

Attorneys for Defendant Neville G. Pinto

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 2, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. 

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/ Mark Landes

Mark Landes (0027227)