UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

CAMERON PADGETT, │ Case No. 1:18-cv-00013-SJD

│

Plaintiff, │ Hon. Susan J. Dlott

│

v. │

│

NEVILLE G. PINTO, │

│

Defendant. │

│

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC ISAAC, WILES, BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, 

By: Kyle J. Bristow (#0089543) LLC

P.O. Box 381164 Mark Landes (#0027227)

Clinton Twp., MI 48038 Mark Weaver (#0065769)

(T): (248) 838-9934 Andrew N. Yosowitz (#0075306)

(F): (586) 408-6384 Shawn K. Judge (#0069493)

(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com 2 Miranova Pl., Ste. 700

Attorney for Cameron Padgett Columbus, OH 43215

(T): (614) 221-2121

KOLENICH LAW OFFICE (F): (614) 365-9516

James E. Kolenich (E): mlandes@isaacwiles.com

9435 Waterstone Blvd., Ste. 140 (E): mweaver@isaacwiles.com

Cincinnati, OH 45069 (E): ayosowitz@isaacwiles.com

(T): (513) 444-2150 (E): sjudge@isaacwiles.com

(F): (513) 297-6065 Attorneys for Neville G. Pinto

(E): jek318@gmail.com

Attorney for Cameron Padgett

PLAINTIFF CAMERON PADGETT’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT NEVILLE G. 

PINTO’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLAIMS

(ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED)

NOW COMES Cameron Padgett (“Plaintiff”), by and through Attorney Kyle J. Bristow, 

and hereby propounds upon Neville G. Pinto (“Defendant”) and this Honorable Court Plaintiff 

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 53
2

Cameron Padgett’s Answer to Defendant Neville G. Pinto’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

on Plaintiff’s Official Capacity Claims:

1. Plaintiff is suing Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity for injunctive relief and 

attorney’s fees only and Plaintiff is suing Defendant in Defendant’s personal capacity for monetary 

damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. (Complaint, Doc 1, Prayers for Relief, Page ID # 

13, 16). Nowhere in Plaintiff’s Complaint’s prayers for relief does Plaintiff request an award of 

money damages against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity, which renders Defendant’s 

instant motion completely unnecessary.1

2. The Court can grant Defendant’s Motion in part insofar as Defendant is seeking a decree 

that Defendant—in Defendant’s official capacity—is not liable to Plaintiff for nominal, general, 

special, or punitive money damages due to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States 

Constitution—which Plaintiff does not dispute—, but the Court should deny Defendant’s Motion 

in part insofar as the Court can nevertheless award attorney’s and injunctive relief to Plaintiff 

against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Honorable Court will grant Defendant’s Motion

only in part insofar as Defendant is seeking a decree that Defendant—in Defendant’s official 

capacity—is not liable to Plaintiff for nominal, general, special, or punitive money damages due 

to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, but the Court should deny 

Defendant’s Motion in part insofar as the Court can nevertheless award attorney’s and injunctive 

relief to Plaintiff against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity.

 

1 Defendant did not even attempt to seek concurrence from Plaintiff prior to filing Defendant’s 

unnecessary Motion which seeks judgment on a non-existent monetary claim against Defendant 

in Defendant’s official capacity.

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 2 of 13 PAGEID #: 54
3

Respectfully submitted,

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC

/s/ Kyle J. Bristow

Kyle J. Bristow (#0089543)

P.O. Box 381164

Clinton Twp., MI 48038

(T): (248) 838-9934

(F): (586) 408-6384

(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Cameron Padgett

Dated: February 6, 2018

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 3 of 13 PAGEID #: 55
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

CAMERON PADGETT, │ Case No. 1:18-cv-00013-SJD

│

Plaintiff, │ Hon. Susan J. Dlott

│

v. │

│

NEVILLE G. PINTO, │

│

Defendant. │

│

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC ISAAC, WILES, BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, 

By: Kyle J. Bristow (#0089543) LLC

P.O. Box 381164 Mark Landes (#0027227)

Clinton Twp., MI 48038 Mark Weaver (#0065769)

(T): (248) 838-9934 Andrew N. Yosowitz (#0075306)

(F): (586) 408-6384 Shawn K. Judge (#0069493)

(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com 2 Miranova Pl., Ste. 700

Attorney for Cameron Padgett Columbus, OH 43215

(T): (614) 221-2121

KOLENICH LAW OFFICE (F): (614) 365-9516

James E. Kolenich (E): mlandes@isaacwiles.com

9435 Waterstone Blvd., Ste. 140 (E): mweaver@isaacwiles.com

Cincinnati, OH 45069 (E): ayosowitz@isaacwiles.com

(T): (513) 444-2150 (E): sjudge@isaacwiles.com

(F): (513) 297-6065 Attorneys for Neville G. Pinto

(E): jek318@gmail.com

Attorney for Cameron Padgett

PLAINTIFF CAMERON PADGETT’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS ANSWER TO 

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

PLEADINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLAIMS

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 4 of 13 PAGEID #: 56
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................... 1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 2

III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED.............................................................................. 2

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW..................................................................................................... 3

V. PRINCIPAL POINT OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................... 4

A. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) FOR PLAINTIFF’S NON-EXISTENT 

CLAIM FOR MONEY DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT IN 

DEFENDANT’S OFFICIAL CAPACITY ...........................................................................4

B. DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) FOR PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST DEFENDANT IN DEFENDANT’S OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY...........................................................................................................................4

VI. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 6

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 5 of 13 PAGEID #: 57
1

I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case Law

Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2001)....................................3

Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co., 177 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1999).....................................................3

Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978)..................................................................................5

Jones v. City of Carlisle, Ky., 3 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 1993) ....................................................3

Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980).................................................................................5

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) .............................................................................3

Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2008)..............................3

Southern Ohio Bank v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 479 F.2d 478 (6th

Cir. 1973).......................................................................................................................3

Welsh v. Gibbs, 631 F.2d 436 (6th Cir. 1980) ......................................................................3

U.S. v. Ford Motor Co., 532 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2008).........................................................3

Statutory and Constitutional Law

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution..............................................2, 4-6

First Amendment to the United States Constitution ............................................................5

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ..................................................5

42 U.S.C. § 1983..................................................................................................................5

42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).............................................................................................................5

Court Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) ............................................................................................................3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)........................................................................................................3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).........................................................................................................2-4

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 6 of 13 PAGEID #: 58
2

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Court’s attention is directed to the averments of act contained within Plaintiff Cameron 

Padgett’s Verified Complaint. (Complaint, Doc 1, Page ID # 1-17). Notwithstanding the 

foregoing, the following factual allegations are relevant for purposes of the instant Motion:

1. Plaintiff attempted to rent a publicly available room for rent at the University of Cincinnati 

so as to host various political figures who espouse controversial right-of-center political 

opinions—which necessitates security for the event. (Complaint, Doc 1, ¶¶ 7, 13, 15, 17, 

Page ID # 3-4).

2. The rental fee for the room Plaintiff desired to rent was only $500—but a security fee of 

$10,833.00 was charged along with it. (Complaint, Doc 1, ¶ 27, Page ID # 7).

3. The University of Cincinnati determines security fees by using two criterions which 

Plaintiff maintains constitute unconstitutional content discrimination on their face and as 

applied to Plaintiff’s situation: “Is the event/speaker controversial?” and “Have any threats 

been received?” (Complaint, Doc 1, ¶ 28, 31, Page ID # 7-8). See Forsyth County v. 

Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992); Sonnier v. Crain, 613 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2010); 

Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 805 F.3d 228, 247 (6th Cir. 2015).

4. Plaintiff is suing Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity for injunctive relief and 

attorney’s fees only and Plaintiff is suing Defendant in Defendant’s personal capacity for 

monetary damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. (Complaint, Doc 1, Prayers for 

Relief, Page ID # 13, 16). Nowhere in Plaintiff’s Complaint’s prayers for relief does 

Plaintiff request an award of money damages against Defendant in Defendant’s official 

capacity, and yet Defendant nevertheless is seeking judgment on the pleadings for this nonexistent claim for damages against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity.

III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether Defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(c) for Plaintiff’s non-existent claim for money damages against Defendant in 

Defendant’s official capacity due to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States 

Constitution.

Plaintiff’s Answer: Yes, and if it was not barred, Plaintiff would have requested 

such damages in Plaintiff’s prayers for relief.

Defendant’s Answer: Yes.

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 7 of 13 PAGEID #: 59
3

2. Whether Defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(c) for Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees against Defendant in Defendant’s official 

capacity.

Plaintiff’s Answer: No.

Defendant’s Answer: Yes.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) states “After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay 

trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” The same standard of review used for 

motions made via Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is to be used for motions made via Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). 

Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 2008).

On a motion brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), the Court’s inquiry is generally limited 

to the content of the complaint, although matters of public record, orders, and exhibits attached to 

the pleadings may also be taken into account. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); Greenberg v. Life Ins. 

Co., 177 F.3d 507, 514 (6th Cir. 1999).

In evaluating a motion for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), the trial court must 

“consider the pleadings and affidavits in light most favorable to the [non-moving] party.” Jones 

v. City of Carlisle, Ky., 3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Welsh v. Gibbs, 631 F.2d 436, 439 

(6th Cir. 1980)). When ruling on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion, the trial court must assume that 

the complaint’s factual allegations are true and should construe all inferences from them in the 

non-moving party’s favor. U.S. v. Ford Motor Co., 532 F.3d 496, 502 (6th Cir. 2008); Bovee v. 

Coopers & Lybrand C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356, 360 (6th Cir. 2001). The trial court must not look at 

whether the plaintiff will “ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence 

to support the claims.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also Southern Ohio Bank 

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 8 of 13 PAGEID #: 60
4

v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 479 F.2d 478, 480 (6th Cir. 1973) (a motion for judgment 

on the pleadings should only be granted “if the moving party is * * * clearly entitled to judgment”).

V. PRINCIPAL POINT OF ARGUMENT

A. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT 

TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) FOR PLAINTIFF’S NON-EXISTENT CLAIM FOR MONEY 

DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT IN DEFENDANT’S OFFICIAL CAPACITY

Plaintiff is suing Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity for injunctive relief and 

attorney’s fees only and Plaintiff is suing Defendant in Defendant’s personal capacity for monetary 

damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. (Complaint, Doc 1, Prayers for Relief, Page ID # 

13, 16). Nowhere in Plaintiff’s Complaint’s prayers for relief does Plaintiff request an award of 

money damages against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity, and yet Defendant 

nevertheless is seeking judgment on the pleadings for this non-existent claim for damages.

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars Plaintiff seeking money 

damages against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity, which is precisely why Plaintiff did 

not pray for such an award in the prayers for relief of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Complaint, Doc 1, 

Prayers for Relief, Page ID # 13, 16).

The Court can decree that Plaintiff cannot recover nominal, general, special, or punitive 

damages against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity due to the Eleventh Amendment to 

the United States Constitution. Such a decree, however, would be a practical nullity because 

Plaintiff never requested such relief in the first place and does not seek it now.

B. DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) FOR PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S 

FEES AGAINST DEFENDANT IN DEFENDANT’S OFFICIAL CAPACITY

Although Plaintiff cannot recover monetary relief in the form of nominal, general, special, 

or punitive damages against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity, Plaintiff can nevertheless 

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 9 of 13 PAGEID #: 61
5

recover attorney’s fees against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity—pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1988(b)—and injunctive relief. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff can seek injunctive 

relief against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity, but there is ambiguity in Defendant’s 

Motion as to the issue of whether attorney’s fees can be awarded to Plaintiff, and so Plaintiff will 

address it herein. (Motion, Doc 11, Page ID # 3-4) (“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.”).

In Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978), the Supreme Court affirmed two awards of 

attorney’s fees against a state government. In Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 280 (1989), the 

Supreme Court made it clear that the “holding of Hutto * * * was not just that Congress had spoken 

sufficiently clearly to overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting § 1988, but rather, 

that the Eleventh Amendment did not apply to an award of attorney’s fees ancillary to a grant of 

prospective relief.” Furthermore, in Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980), it was decreed that 

federal courts can award attorney’s fees for claims made against state actors in their official 

capacities provided that there is a substantial claim raised under the Constitution or a statute 

enacted under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, of course, is a statute enacted under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are substantially raised under the 

Constitution insofar as the First Amendment thereto is at the crux of the instant controversy.

When Plaintiff ultimately prevails against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity for 

Defendant having imposed a flagrantly unconstitutional price-tag on Plaintiff’s exercise of his free 

speech rights, Plaintiff will seek an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 10 of 13 PAGEID #: 62
6

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Honorable Court should grant Defendant’s Motion in

part insofar as Defendant is seeking a decree that Defendant—in Defendant’s official capacity—

is not liable to Plaintiff for nominal, general, special, or punitive money damages due to the 

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution—which Plaintiff does not dispute and 

which Plaintiff never sought in Plaintiff’s Complaint—, but the Court should deny Defendant’s 

Motion in part insofar as the Court can nevertheless award attorney’s fees and injunctive relief to 

Plaintiff against Defendant in Defendant’s official capacity.

Respectfully submitted,

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC

/s/ Kyle J. Bristow

Kyle J. Bristow (#0089543)

P.O. Box 381164

Clinton Twp., MI 48038

(T): (248) 838-9934

(F): (586) 408-6384

(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Cameron Padgett

Dated: February 6, 2018

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 11 of 13 PAGEID #: 63
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

CAMERON PADGETT, │ Case No. 1:18-cv-00013-SJD

│

Plaintiff, │ Hon. Susan J. Dlott

│

v. │

│

NEVILLE G. PINTO, │

│

Defendant. │

│

BRISTOW LAW, PLLC ISAAC, WILES, BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, 

By: Kyle J. Bristow (#0089543) LLC

P.O. Box 381164 Mark Landes (#0027227)

Clinton Twp., MI 48038 Mark Weaver (#0065769)

(T): (248) 838-9934 Andrew N. Yosowitz (#0075306)

(F): (586) 408-6384 Shawn K. Judge (#0069493)

(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com 2 Miranova Pl., Ste. 700

Attorney for Cameron Padgett Columbus, OH 43215

(T): (614) 221-2121

KOLENICH LAW OFFICE (F): (614) 365-9516

James E. Kolenich (E): mlandes@isaacwiles.com

9435 Waterstone Blvd., Ste. 140 (E): mweaver@isaacwiles.com

Cincinnati, OH 45069 (E): ayosowitz@isaacwiles.com

(T): (513) 444-2150 (E): sjudge@isaacwiles.com

(F): (513) 297-6065 Attorneys for Neville G. Pinto

(E): jek318@gmail.com

Attorney for Cameron Padgett

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kyle J. Bristow, affirm that I am an attorney of record for a party to the above-captioned 

civil action, and on February 6, 2018, I submitted a true and accurate copy of this Certificate of 

Service, Plaintiff Cameron Padgett’s Brief in Support of His Answer to Defendant Neville G. 

Pinto’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff’s Official Capacity Claims, and Plaintiff 

Cameron Padgett’s Answer to Defendant Neville G. Pinto’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 12 of 13 PAGEID #: 64
2

on Plaintiff’s Official Capacity Claims to the Court’s Electronic Filing System, which should serve 

copies of the same upon all attorney’s of record who have registered to receive electronic service 

through said system.

/s/ Kyle J. Bristow

Kyle J. Bristow (#0089543)

P.O. Box 381164

Clinton Twp., MI 48038

(T): (248) 838-9934

(F): (586) 408-6384

(E): BristowLaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Cameron Padgett

Dated: February 6, 2018

Case: 1:18-cv-00013-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 13 of 13 PAGEID #: 65