Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ALISHA LANGE : Case No.: 1:24-cv-171

6480 North Troy Sidney Rd. :
Piqua, OH 45356 :
: Judge:
and :
:
DAVID SMITH :
701 Fisk Street :
Piqua, OH 45356 :
:
and :
:
GREG NEVES :
1012 W. Greene St. :
Piqua, OH 45356 :
:
and :
:
JASON TILLMAN :
512 Kitt Street :
Piqua, OH 45356 :
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
vs. :
:
CITY OF PIQUA :
201 West Water Street :
Piqua, OH 45356 :
:
and :
:
PAUL OBERDORFER :
(In official capacity) :
201 West Water Street :
Piqua, OH 45356 :
:
Defendants. :

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1
 Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: 2

Plaintiffs Alisha Lange, David Smith, Greg Neves, and Jason Tillman state the

following for their Complaint against Defendants City of Piqua (“Piqua”) and Paul

Oberdorfer (“Oberdorfer”) (collectively “Defendants”):

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a case about a government that uses any excuse to ban critics permanently

and categorically from either attending or speaking at its public meetings. Because

numerous community members have criticized Defendants for government-

sanctioned pollution, the Defendants have maliciously used trespass letters to

censor their critics indefinitely. The First Amendment of the United States

Constitution forbids permanent restraints on future speech based upon past

conduct because these bans are not narrowly tailored to a compelling government

interest.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiffs Alisha Lange (“Lange”), David Smith (“Smith”), Gregory Neves

(“Neves”), and Jason Tillman (“Tillman”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are all residents

of Miami County, Ohio.

3. Defendant Piqua is a municipal corporation located in Miami County, Ohio.

4. Defendant Oberdorfer is Piqua’s city manager, he is the final decisionmaker of

Piqua’s day-to-day operations, and he is named here in both his official and

individual capacities.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action because Plaintiffs have brought their

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

2
 Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: 3

6. Venue is proper in this Court because the events described in this Complaint

occurred in Miami County, Ohio.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

7. Piqua is a charter city.

8. Piqua refers to its city council as its “Commission.”

9. The Commission is comprised of five members, and the Commission votes to

appoint one of the commissioners as Piqua’s Mayor.

10. The mayor is the presiding officer of Piqua’s meetings.

11. This case largely concerns citizen outrage because Piqua entered into a

controversial agreement permitting a private company to conduct tests involving

the burning of lithium batteries.

12. On October 3, 2023, citizens attended Piqua’s Commission meeting to voice

concerns about the aftereffects of Energy Safety Response Group’s (ESRG) lithium

battery burn testing in Piqua.

13. These were matters of great public concern.

14. In fact, the Ohio EPA stated the following concerning the matter:

The Energy Safety Response Group (ESRG) ceased all lithium-

ion battery testing on Sept. 22, 2023, at the former Piqua water
treatment plant. Ohio EPA issued a notice of violation to
ESRG, which requested the company send Ohio EPA water and
air data collected from the site over the last three years. Ohio
EPA is reviewing the data. The city of Piqua and ESRG agreed
that ESRG will vacate the site within the next 60 days.
Ohio EPA and the RAPCA performed an inspection of the site
on Sept. 21, 2023, after receiving numerous complaints of open
burning and concerns over air emissions and water
contamination. The inspection determined the testing was not
within the scope of the open burning permission. The
permission was submitted by the Piqua Fire Department for

3
 Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: 4

ESRG to conduct fire research and training, but the fire

department was not on site for the burning.
Ohio EPA terminated Piqua’s current open burning
permission at the city’s request. The site may still be used for
other fire training in the future.
15. At this October meeting, Plaintiff Lange spoke during public participation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Xa2tyWmYk at 57:25.

16. Lange began to ask if any of the commissioners were going to resign from office.

17. When Lange peacefully asked whether any of the commissioners intended to

resign, the Commission abruptly cut off Lange’s public participation time,

terminated public participation of the remaining public, and forced Lange to sit

down before she could finish her public comment. Id.

18. Lange did not exceed her time limit, and she did not engage in any unprotected

speech. Id.

19. Instead, Lange merely asked elected officials if they intended to resign after the

controversy concerning the burning of lithium batteries in Piqua. Id.

20. In other words, Lange was petitioning government officials with her grievances

about their conduct regarding matters of great public concern.

21. After silencing Lange and shutting down public participation, Piqua refused to let

other citizens speak, and it absurdly blamed Lange for its decision to silence

further critical speech. Id. at 58:18.

22. Lange did not disrupt the conduct of the meeting.

23. The commissioners merely did not like the viewpoints expressed in Lange’s speech,

and they were unwilling to permit her to continue her critical viewpoints on

October 3, 2023.

4
 Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: 5

24. When instructed to stop talking, Lange complied, and she returned to her seat

because Piqua’s Commission rules empower Piqua to arrest citizens if they do not

comply with instructions during meetings.

25. On February 6, 2024, Lange attended another meeting, where she was supposed

to speak during public comment.

26. Right before she was to set speak, another citizen was speaking during public

participation.

27. When that speaker was asking about a date, Lange spoke from the audience and

provided the date.

28. Lange was immediately kicked out of the meeting for speaking in the audience.

29. Other members of the public have spoken or cheered in the audience without Piqua

kicking them out of the meeting in the past.

30. Regardless, Lange immediately left when she was instructed to leave the meeting.

31. She did not resist her removal or argue about her removal in the Commission

chambers.

32. Moreover, the Commission did not even warn Lange before removing her as

required under its own Rules for meeting conduct. (Exhibit 1).

33. After Piqua kicked Lange out of the February 6, 2024, Commission meeting,

Defendants sent her a letter informing her that she was banned from ever

attending a public meeting or entering the Piqua city building again.

34. Lange was informed that if she ever came into Piqua’s building, Piqua would arrest

her and charge her with trespassing.

35. Lange has not attended a public meeting since receiving this letter because she is

in imminent fear of arrest.

5
 Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: 6

36. Thus, Defendants permanently banned Lange from access to public information or

engaging in future speech based upon her alleged conduct at one meeting.

37. Defendants have provided no means for Lange to appeal her permanent ban.

38. Defendants have created a policy of banning critics, and they have enforced this

policy against numerous critics, including the other Plaintiffs in this Action.

39. As another example, Tillman has been critical of Oberdorfer in the past.

40. Within the last year, Tillman criticized Oberdorfer’s conduct relating to Tillman’s

property.

41. This criticism occurred outside of a Commission meeting.

42. The Commission has never removed Tillman from a Commission meeting.

43. Piqua has never charged Tillman with any violent crime or menacing.

44. None of Piqua’s officials have ever obtained a civil protection order or other judicial

determination that Tillman is a threat to anyone in Piqua’s government.

45. Nonetheless, Oberdorfer has sent Tillman an email permanently banning Tillman

from ever setting foot on Piqua’s property under penalty of arrest.

46. Thus, Oberdorfer and Piqua have permanently banned Tillman from ever

attending a Commission meeting, and his speech at all future meetings is forever

restrained.

47. Tillman was not provided with notice of the reasons he was banned from

Commission meetings, and he has no means to appeal his ban.

48. Similar to Tillman, Plaintiff Neves was also permanently banned from attending

Piqua Commission meetings for comments that occurred outside of Commission

meetings.

49. Specifically, Neves made critical comments about Oberdorfer on Facebook.

6
 Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: 7

50. In a post where someone was defending Piqua, Oberdorfer made a comment that

Oberdorfer may need a bullet proof vest because of the anger in the community.

51. Neves did not intend to threaten to personally harm Oberdorfer, and Neves is not

a violent person.

52. Neves’s point was that people were furious with the Piqua government.

53. Neves did not incite or intend to incite imminent lawlessness or violence.

54. Oberdorfer has suffered no harm because of the Facebook comment.

55. Neves’s statement was merely intended as a figure-of-speech.

56. However, in typical fashion for Oberdorfer, he seized upon this moment as an

excuse for permanently banning Neves from ever attending another Commissioner

meeting or engaging in any future speech at a meeting.

57. Defendants have never removed Neves from a meeting, and they have not

contended that he has ever disrupted a public meeting.

58. Neves received no due process or any ability to appeal the permanent ban letter.

59. In addition to the other three Plaintiffs, David Smith also can no longer attend

Commission meetings.

60. On March 5, 2024, Smith attended the Commission meeting.

61. When Smith approached the lectern to provide public comment, the mayor

instructed Smith to identify his name and home address.

62. Smith refused to provide his home address.

63. The mayor insisted that Smith could not speak if he did not provide his home

address.

64. Thus, the mayor decided to coerce and compel Smith’s speech.

7
 Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: 8

65. Smith told the mayor that there was no rule that he must share his address to

speak, and Smith refused to provide his address at that time.

66. The mayor continued to argue with Smith.

67. Seemingly unbeknownst to the mayor, Piqua’s rules for public participation do not

require a person to identify himself or announce his home address to speak.

(Exhibit 1)

68. Nonetheless, because Smith continued to express critical viewpoints about the

mayor’s demands and attempts to compel Smith’s speech, the mayor ordered

Piqua’s police to remove Smith from the meeting.

69. After his removal, Smith informed the officer that he believed his constitutional

rights were violated.

70. The officer responded to Smith that the Constitution did not mean anything in

Piqua.

71. Days after his removal, Oberdorfer sent Smith a letter permanently banning Smith

from coming onto Piqua property, which functions to completely deprive Smith of

his ability to access Piqua’s public meetings or speak at those meetings.

72. This permanent ban is based upon Smith’s past conduct.

73. All Plaintiffs here would desire to attend meetings or have the ability to come into

the government building to do lawful business but are restrained from doing so

under threat of arrest.

COUNT I – FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH

(Retaliation and Prior Restraint – All Defendants)

74. Plaintiffs restate all previous paragraphs.

75. All Plaintiffs engaged in expressions about matters of public concern.

8
 Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: 9

76. Plaintiff Lange’s speech concerning the potential resignations of Piqua’s

commissioners was a protected viewpoint.

77. Piqua’s rules do not forbid discussing the resignations of public officials.

78. Defendant Piqua silenced and restrained Lange’s viewpoints about the resignation

of elected officials in violation of the First Amendment.

79. Moreover, when Plaintiff Smith refused to submit to compelled speech concerning

his home address, Smith expressed a viewpoint that Piqua had no legal right to

compel his speech.

80.Piqua had an officer remove Smith to punish him for this viewpoint.

81. Piqua restrained Smith’s speech in violation of the First Amendment.

82. Defendants banned all Plaintiffs from ever attending and speaking at any future

commission meeting.

83. Defendants’ ban letters are a complete censorship of all Plaintiffs’ future speech at

commission meetings.

84. Defendants’ bans of Plaintiffs’ future speech are all based upon the Plaintiffs’

alleged past conduct.

85. Defendants’ ban letters are not narrowly tailored to any compelling government

purpose.

86. Defendant knew or should have known that their ban letters are unconstitutional.

87. Defendants’ decisions to ban Plaintiffs and restrain their speech was carried out by

final decision makers with the authority to do so, these bans were issued according

to the established policies of Piqua, and these decisions were otherwise ratified by

Piqua.

9
 Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: 10

88. Defendants’ actions were malicious and intended to silence critical speech in

violation of the First Amendment.

COUNT II – FIRST AMENDMENT ACCESS TO INFORMATION

(Retaliation and Prior Restraint – All Defendants)

89. Plaintiffs restate all previous paragraphs.

90. The Ohio Open Meetings Act requires that all meetings always remain open to the

public.

91. The Piqua Commission meetings are historically held open to the public to provide

the public with information as a matter of Ohio law.

92. The First Amendment guarantees that the public has access to certain information.

93. When Defendants banned Plaintiffs from all further access to this information,

Defendants’ actions were not narrowly tailored to any compelling government

interest.

94. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to access information.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court finds for them and orders

the following relief:

a. Injunctive relief invalidating Defendants’ trespass orders;

b. Declaratory judgment;

c. Compensatory and nominal damages;

d. Punitive damages;

e. Attorney fees;

f. Costs and expenses; and

g. All other relief this Court deems proper.

10
Case: 1:24-cv-00171-JPH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/24 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: 11

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matt Miller-Novak

Matt Miller-Novak, Esq. (0091402)
Barron, Peck, Bennie, &
Schlemmer, Co. LPA
3074 Madison Road,
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Phone: 513-721-1350
Fax:513-991-6430
MMN@BPBSLaw.com

/s/ Robert Thompson

Robert Thompson, Esq. (0098791)
Thompson Legal, LLC
10529 Timberwood Circle, Unit B
Louisville, KY 40223
P: 502-366-2121
F: 502-438-9999
robert@rthompsonlegal.com

11