The family of a man who died after being restrained by local police is seeking more than $13 million in damages, alleging that law enforcement officers used excessive force resulting in his death and that city officials failed to prevent or address patterns of violence within the department. The complaint was filed by John Tyson, individually and as administrator of the estate of Frank E. Tyson, on April 16, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the City of Canton, multiple police officers, fire department personnel, and supervisory officials.
According to the filing, Frank E. Tyson died on April 18, 2024, following an encounter with two Canton Police Officers at Amvets Post 124 in Canton. The lawsuit claims that officers Beau Schoenegge and Camden Burch used excessive force when detaining Tyson by placing their knees on his back and neck while he was handcuffed and lying prone on the ground. The complaint states that Tyson repeatedly told officers he could not breathe before becoming unresponsive.
The plaintiff asserts that these actions violated Tyson’s constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, it is alleged that “Defendants Schoenegge and Burch used excessive force when they seized the person of Decedent Tyson,” including taking him to the ground without verbal exchange or opportunity to comply, intentionally placing their knees on his back and neck while he posed no threat, keeping him in a position where he could not breathe despite hearing his pleas for help, and leaving him prone until he suffered positional asphyxiation.
The complaint also addresses what it describes as a failure by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to provide adequate care upon arrival at the scene. It claims EMS/Fire Defendants did not follow Advanced Cardiac Life Support protocols or provide necessary life-saving interventions even though “Decedent Tyson is unconscious and in cardiac distress.” The document further alleges that EMS/Fire Defendants either ignored or were not properly trained to recognize signs indicating urgent medical intervention was needed.
Supervisory liability is another focus of the lawsuit. The plaintiff names several supervisors—including Lieutenant Eric Vanover, Lieutenant Anthony Birone, Captain Lester Marino, Chief John D. Gabbard (Chief of Police), Captain James Coombs (Fire Department), Guy Gearhart (Fire Department), Paul Perdiccas (Fire Department), Kimberly Miller (Fire Department), Eric Metz (Fire Department), Steven Swihart (Fire Department), Akbar Bennett (Chief of Fire Department)—and claims they knew or should have known about patterns of misconduct but failed to take corrective action. According to the filing: “The Supervisory Defendants had a duty…to take action to discipline and/or otherwise prevent Defendants Schoenegge and Burch from engaging in the above-stated conduct.” It is alleged that their failure created an environment where such incidents could occur.
The suit further accuses the City of Canton itself under Monell v. Department of Social Services for maintaining unconstitutional policies or customs that led to repeated instances of excessive force by its police department. Citing previous incidents involving use of deadly force by Canton police officers—including ongoing litigation referenced as Williams v. City of Canton—the plaintiff argues there exists a longstanding pattern which has not been adequately addressed through training or discipline.
In addition to compensatory damages for emotional distress, loss of companionship, legal fees, and other harms allegedly suffered by Tyson’s family as a result of his death, the plaintiff requests punitive damages against individual defendants for willful or reckless conduct. The complaint also seeks equitable relief requiring policy changes within city departments aimed at preventing similar events in future.
The attorneys representing John Tyson are Robert F. DiCello, Kenneth P. Abbarno, Justin J. Hawal, Peter C. Soldato, Joseph T. Frate, Jordyn A. Parks from DiCello Levitt LLP; Benjamin Crump; and Chance Lynch from Ben Crump Law PLLC.* The case is identified as Case No.: 5:26-cv-00903.
*Crump and Lynch are noted as seeking admission pro hac vice.
Source: 526cv00903_Tyson_v_City_of_Canton_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
