Wood v. Eubanks, 459 F.Supp.3d 965

Background

On July 29, 2016 Michael Woods attended the Clark County Fairgrounds wearing a shirt reading “F**K THE POLICE”; fairgoers complained he was videotaping people (including children) and using profanity.
Fairgrounds Executive Director Dean Blair refunded Woods’s admission and asked him to leave; an argument ensued during which Woods hurled insults, profanity, threw his refunded money, and repeatedly taunted officers.
Deputies (Eubanks, Johnson, Shaw, Steiger, Troutman, Yates) escorted Woods toward the gate; Troutman briefly contacted Woods’s shoulder (disputed as a push). Woods was handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct and obstruction; the charges were later dismissed.
Woods sued under federal and state law (13 counts alleging constitutional violations, excessive force, false arrest, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, IIED, etc.).
The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on most counts but denying it as to First Amendment retaliation (Count IV) and unlawful arrest (Count XI); the district judge granted summary judgment to defendants in full.
The court held defendants entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful-arrest claim because officers had probable cause under Ohio’s disorderly conduct law, and rejected Woods’s First Amendment retaliation claim for lack of evidence that deputies acted due to his shirt. The court also denied Woods’s motions to file pro se submissions while represented and to add unrelated claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unlawful arrest / Fourth Amendment	Woods contends arrest was unconstitutional because speech-protected conduct (shirt, insults) cannot support probable cause.	Officers argue they had probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct based on fighting words, taunts, refusal to follow directions, and public disturbance.	Court: Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; probable cause existed for disorderly conduct, so no Fourth Amendment violation.
First Amendment retaliation (Count IV)	Woods alleges defendants conspired with Blair to detain him so Blair could view/confiscate the shirt and punish speech.	Defendants say they were dispatched to a disturbance at Blair’s request, acted to maintain order, and showed no animus toward the shirt.	Court: Summary judgment for defendants — no evidence deputies acted because of the shirt and escorting/eviction was not an adverse retaliatory seizure.
State-law claims / statute of limitations (Amended objection)	Woods (with counsel) sought to treat Count I as asserting assault/battery/false arrest/false imprisonment and IIED.	Defendants assert any state claims accrued 7/29/2016 and are time-barred; IIED is unlikely to succeed on the merits.	Court: Any state-law claims are barred by Ohio statutes of limitation (one year for assault/battery/false arrest); IIED also fails on the merits.
Pro se filings / hybrid representation	Woods filed motions pro se while later obtaining counsel and asked leave to manually file items.	Defendants and court note parties cannot have hybrid representation; pro se filings by represented parties are improper and may be struck.	Court: Denied Woods’s motion to manually file; enforced single representation rule.
Motion for extension / amendment to add trespass-related claims	Woods sought to reopen discovery and add new claims related to a later trespass order/letter (Jan 2020).	Defendants argued the proposed claims are factually unrelated, would prejudice them, and come long after discovery and summary-judgment briefing.	Court: Denied extension/amendment; new claims unrelated in time/fact and would prejudice defendants.

Key Cases Cited

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide qualified immunity sequence pragmatically)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (original two-step qualified-immunity inquiry)
Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (warrantless arrest reasonableness and probable cause standard)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (probable cause assessed from totality of circumstances)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause as a ‘‘fluid concept’’ requiring totality-of-circumstances analysis)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (fighting-words doctrine limiting First Amendment protection)
Cincinnati v. Karlan, 39 Ohio St.2d 107 (Ohio decision upholding convictions for epithets directed at police as fighting words)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (core First Amendment protection for criticism of public officials)